Scout champion select composition and damage mix

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: it returns cleanly with inChampSelect: false when no draft is active, so the agent knows a null-ish result is normal rather than an error. It stops short of describing rate limits or latency, keeping it at 4.

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?

Front-loads the core capability, then routes to siblings, then states behavior and returns. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and coverage of the safety profile already in annotations, the description supplies the remaining essentials: the analysis performed, the inactive-draft edge case, and the shape of the return (draft breakdown plus composition warnings). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (scouts) and resource (active allied team draft in champion select) plus the concrete analysis it performs: physical vs magic damage distribution and composition gaps. An agent can distinguish it from sibling workflow tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to the champion select draft phase and names the alternatives for adjacent actions: lol_workflow_champ_select for locking/hovering/banning and lol_workflow_runes_set / lol_workflow_spells_set for runes and spells. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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