List curated LCU endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. It discloses the case-insensitive substring filter behavior and the fields returned (verb, group, description). It does not specify the exact output format (e.g., array of objects) or pagination, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail. The filter behavior is explained succinctly without waste.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is largely complete. It specifies what is returned (verb, group, description) and filter behavior. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the described table structure, though exact JSON format is not stated.

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 already provides the filter parameter and examples, but the description adds value by explaining case-insensitivity and the fields it matches (verb, path, group, description). This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 title and description clearly state the tool lists curated LCU endpoints with verb, group, and one-line description. It is distinct from siblings like lol_get/lol_request that execute calls, and the phrase 'this project actually uses' clarifies scope.

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 the tool is for discovering the endpoints the project supports, which separates it from the call-execution tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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