opendota_heroes

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context: a concrete return shape ('top-level array, ~127 heroes'), exact field naming ('localized_name', 'primary_attr'), and a no-auth note. This goes beyond the structured annotations to clarify output structure and scale.

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 compact and well-organized: a lead phrase, a Returns block with a concrete example, a one-line usage example, and an auth note. Every sentence contributes information and there is no padding.

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?

This is a parameterless, auth-free list endpoint. The description fully specifies the output fields, shape, and approximate size, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it and interpret the result. No output schema exists, but the embedded return example compensates.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no effort on parameters and focuses on the return payload instead.

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 clearly identifies the tool as 'the hero catalogue' and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, primary attribute, attack type, roles), making the resource unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling opendota tools like opendota_hero_stats, but the field list and 'catalogue' wording distinguish it effectively.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative opendota tools. The 'Example: All heroes' line implies a general list retrieval, but there are no exclusions or references to siblings such as opendota_hero_stats for statistical hero data.

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