get_rotation_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it 'Returns rotation events, gank attempts, and their success rates,' which gives a clear picture of the output. However, it does not disclose limitations like the default time window (0-20 minutes), any potential side effects (though likely read-only), or how the analysis is computed. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by output details. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete. It does not explain the time-window parameters, how they affect results, or how this tool fits among siblings like get_hero_positions or get_match_timeline. The core purpose is clear, but the operational context is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters (match_id, start_minute, end_minute). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning, such as how the time window affects the analysis or that match_id is required. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 what the tool does: 'Analyze hero rotations - movement patterns between lanes and outcomes' and lists specific outputs ('rotation events, gank attempts, and their success rates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hero_positions or get_lane_summary, which focus on different aspects of match data.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or name any sibling tools to differentiate from. The only implied usage is 'if you need rotation analysis,' which is not enough to help an agent choose correctly among many similar positional/analysis tools.

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