get_fight_combat_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the automatic fight detection behavior and the output content (deaths, abilities, key moments). It does not mention error handling or explicitly state non-destructive behavior, but the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. This is reasonably transparent but not exhaustive.

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 main description is two focused sentences, followed by a compact Args block that lists each parameter with a brief, useful explanation. No redundant or placeholder language exists; every line contributes value.

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?

The description covers all parameters, explains the auto-detection behavior, and summarizes the output content. An output schema exists (though not shown), so detailed return structure is not required. Minor gaps include no mention of what happens if no fight is found or how the 'sequence' is ordered, but overall it is adequate for a 5-parameter tool with an output 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is the sole parameter documentation. It provides meaningful details for all five parameters: example format for reference_time, purpose for hero ('anchor fight detection'), enum options for detail_level, and clear semantics for match_id and max_events. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed event-by-event combat log for a specific fight.' It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'specific fight' and 'Automatically detects the fight around reference_time', which sets it apart from list_fights or get_teamfights.

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 context (retrieving combat details for a fight at a given time) and explains the auto-detection mechanic, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when this tool should be preferred over siblings like get_raw_combat_events or get_fight. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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