listHeroes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the operation is a listing with an optional filter, which is transparent about the basic behavior. However, it doesn't disclose response format, ordering, pagination, or any side effects, making it minimally sufficient for a read-only list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and scope, containing no filler or redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and filtering capability. It doesn't specify return fields, but for a straightforward listing tool this is an acceptable gap, especially with a well-documented schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter comments. The tool description only repeats the status filter concept, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'list', identifies the resource 'heroes' within a world, and mentions an optional status filter. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like getHero (single hero) and listWorlds (different resource).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you need a collection of heroes in a world, with optional filtering. It does not explicitly provide alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over getHero or listWorlds.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.