get_lane_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data source, freshness, required permissions, or potential side effects. For a minimal one-line description, it offers only the most basic implication of a safe read.

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, brief sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, the vagueness of 'summary' means it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, so it doesn't earn a perfect score.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is still incomplete. It does not clarify what 'laning phase' constitutes, what the summary contains, or how this tool relates to sibling tools such as get_match_timeline or get_fight. The absence of annotations makes the lack of behavioral context more impactful.

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 0%—the input schema provides no descriptions for the match_id parameter. The description does not elaborate on what match_id refers to or any formatting/range constraints. Since the schema provides only name and type, and the description adds no meaning, parameter semantics are poorly addressed.

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 purpose: 'Get laning phase summary for a Dota 2 match.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('laning phase summary'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fight or get_jungle_summary. However, it lacks additional scoping details that could further differentiate it from similar summary tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of appropriate contexts, limitations, or exclusions. The existence of many sibling tools with similar 'get_*' patterns makes this lack of guidance notably deficient.

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