Live game stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the 'Safe and read-only' line adds little. However, the description goes beyond annotations with a real operational prerequisite ('Match must be currently running (port 2999)'), which tells the agent when the call will fail — valuable behavioral context.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then usage, then the alternative sibling, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is padding.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (status, clock, mode, map ID) and the failure prerequisite, which is enough for correct invocation. It does not describe the error/empty response shape when no match is running, a minor remaining gap.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax to explain, and the description correctly spends no space on it.

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 basic match status, game clock time, game mode, and map ID from the live League game engine') and enumerates exactly what is returned. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling lol_game_all, which is named as the broader alternative.

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 names three concrete use cases (verify a match is in progress, check elapsed time, identify game mode) and routes the agent to lol_game_all when full telemetry is needed. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else conditions are stated.

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