aram_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses covered stats (damage dealt/taken, healing, shields, etc.) and clarifies the distinction between no adjustment and query failure. No mention of auth or rate limits, but adequate for a simple query tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, then detailed scope, followed by explicit parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 is a simple query with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context. It specifies the query inputs, the range of stats, and the expected behavior for edge cases (no adjustment vs failure).

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 single parameter 'champion' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: it accepts both Chinese and English names, provides examples, and implies flexibility. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 the tool queries ARAM balance numbers for champion patches, specifying gain and nerf indicators. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_augment' and 'mayhem_balance' by focusing specifically on ARAM balance.

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 explains when to use the tool (to query ARAM balance for a champion) and notes that it distinguishes between 'no adjustment' and 'query failure'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools.

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