Live game all data

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds operational context beyond them: the Live Client Data API on port 2999 must be active, and the default output is a compact summary to conserve tokens, with 'raw' returning a ~100KB payload. This tells the agent about prerequisites and response-size tradeoffs.

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 purpose, then gives just enough routing guidance and behavioral context. The sibling alternatives and prerequisite are succinctly framed, and no sentence is wasted for a tool whose selection depends on match state and data scope.

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 tool with rich annotations and a fully described single parameter but no output schema, the description covers selection context, prerequisites, and the summary-vs-raw output tradeoff. It does not detail the summary payload's exact structure, but it gives enough to choose the tool and format correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single format parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some decision-relevant meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the default summary conserves tokens and that 'raw' yields the full ~100KB payload, though it largely reinforces the schema's summary/raw definitions.

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 and resource: 'Fetch complete real-time in-match game state' from the live League game engine, and enumerates the data it includes (scores, inventories, time, objectives, events). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming lol_game_player, lol_game_stats, lol_game_events, and lol_get for narrower needs.

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 says when to use it ('during an active match to get full game telemetry') and names four alternative tools for specific needs (player details, clock/map only, events, client/lobby data). The prerequisite is also stated: the match must be currently running.

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