get_hero_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's basic function ('Get hero positions') and adds no context about read-only behavior, data format, coordinate system, or potential error conditions. The description adds no value beyond what the name and schema already imply.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is complete enough for a basic getter. However, it does not explain how this tool differs from close siblings like get_position_timeline or get_snapshot_at_time, nor does it clarify what 'positions' includes (e.g., all heroes, coordinate system). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent in a rich sibling context.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly hints that 'match' relates to match_id and 'specific minute' relates to minute. It does not clarify units (e.g., seconds vs minutes), valid ranges, or the meaning of the position data. This is insufficient given the complete lack of property descriptions.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('hero positions'), and the scope ('at a specific minute in a Dota 2 match'). It distinguishes from similar sibling tools like get_position_timeline (which implies a timeline) and get_snapshot_at_time (which implies a full snapshot), making the specific purpose evident.

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 for a single point in time ('at a specific minute'), which hints at a distinction from timeline-based tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is only implied rather than clearly stated.

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