get_teamfights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool filters by minimum deaths (default 3), optional location, and time range, and that it returns teamfight timing, participants, death sequences, and analysis. No surprising side effects or safety concerns are omitted, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior.

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 compact: two introductory sentences and five parameter lines. It front-loads the core purpose and every sentence adds value without redundancy. The formatting is clear and easy to scan.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and 5 parameters, all of which are well-documented in the description. The high-level return content is stated. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but the core functionality and parameters are sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, but the description provides a dedicated Args section explaining each parameter in detail, including the default for min_deaths and a partial-match example for location. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds meaningful semantics beyond type/default.

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 begins with 'Get major teamfights (3+ deaths) with coaching analysis', which clearly specifies the resource (teamfights), the verb (get), and the distinguishing scope (major with 3+ deaths). It also lists returned data (timing, participants, death sequences, analysis), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_fight or list_fights.

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 when to use the tool by specifying 'major teamfights (3+ deaths)' and supporting filters for location and time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over similar fight-related siblings.

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