get_match_draft

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 states what the tool returns, omitting any behavior like read-only status, potential empty results for matches without drafts, or performance characteristics. This lack of transparency leaves the agent without important operational context.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the tool's function. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it optimally concise.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, but the description lacks important contextual details such as when a draft is available or how this tool relates to sibling tools. It is adequate for basic identification but not sufficiently complete to guide an agent in all relevant scenarios.

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 one parameter (match_id) with no description, resulting in 0% coverage. The description does not explain match_id or its expected format, forcing the agent to rely on the name alone. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 'complete draft (picks and bans) for a Dota 2 match' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_match_heroes or get_match_info by focusing on the drafting phase, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., matches with a draft phase) or how it relates to other match-related tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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