list_fights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content ('fight count, timing, participants, and deaths'), which helps, but it does not mention any limitations, side effects, or performance considerations. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not stated.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary and return info, followed by an organized Args block. Each parameter explanation is brief and informative, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool.

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 description covers all parameters and provides a return summary. Since an output schema exists, detailed return field descriptions are not required. It is complete for its complexity, though it does not explain relationships to sibling tools or edge cases like empty results.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains every parameter with meaningful semantics and examples, e.g. 'location: Filter by map location (partial match, e.g. t1, roshan_pit)' and 'is_teamfight: Filter to teamfights only (True) or skirmishes only (False)'. This fully compensates 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 'List all fights/skirmishes in a match with death summaries' – a specific verb (List), resource (fights/skirmishes), and scope (in a match). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_fight (single fight) and get_teamfights (teamfights only) by covering both fights and skirmishes.

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: it lists fights/skirmishes with optional filters, and the Args clarify filter semantics. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as using get_teamfights for teamfight-only queries or get_fight for a specific fight.

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