get_rune_pickups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It details what the tool returns (a list of events with specific fields), and clearly notes a critical limitation (only power runes are detectable). It does not discuss potential errors or side effects, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is adequate.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: a one-line summary, then a bulleted list of return fields, a limitation note, example questions, and an args/returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the return fields, notes the limitation, and gives example use cases. The presence of an output schema means the description need not detail the response structure, but it does anyway, making the tool self-contained.

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 for its single parameter (match_id), but the description compensates by stating 'match_id: The Dota 2 match ID.' This provides clear meaning beyond the bare integer type in the schema, fully covering the parameter's purpose.

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 starts with 'Get power rune pickups in a Dota 2 match' — a specific verb ('Get') plus a clear resource ('power rune pickups') and context ('in a Dota 2 match'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on rune pickups, which is unique among the listed 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?

The description provides clear context through example questions and explicitly states that only power runes are trackable, which serves as a when-not to use this tool for other rune types. However, it does not name an alternative tool (e.g., 'use get_item_purchases for items'), so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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