pvp_get_skin_covers_by_name

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 does add genuine value by revealing the output format (Markdown), the content scope (includes the original skin), and the storage path pattern (custom_wzry_A1/*.jpg). It does not, however, describe edge-case behavior such as misspelled or unknown hero names, empty results, or any error conditions, so the behavioral picture is incomplete but not misleading.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs in the input, the output, the scope qualifier (original skin included), and the display format. Every clause earns its place; there is zero filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential calling contract: what to pass (hero Chinese name), what comes back (skin covers as Markdown with names and URLs), and a distinguishing detail (path pattern, original skin included). The only notable gap is error/not-found behavior, which is minor for a read-style lookup tool but would round it out.

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 100% — the heroName parameter is already documented in the schema with its type, requirement, and examples (孙权、张良). The description's phrase '根据...英雄中文名' merely reinforces that the name must be Chinese, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (获取/get), a precise resource (skin cover images for a named Honor of Kings hero), and the output form (Markdown list of skin names and URLs). It also names the scope explicitly — 'including the original skin' — and the URL pattern, which clearly distinguishes it from the generic HTML-utility siblings (fetch_html, extract_readable, query_selector).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'call this when you have a hero's Chinese name and need their skin cover links' from the description's verb and resource. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of what to do if the hero name is unknown.

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