League client status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Safe and read-only; requires no client write permissions' is largely redundant. It adds the subsystem coverage list but discloses nothing about cost, latency, or what a failed subsystem looks like in the response.

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-loaded with the scope statement and diagnostic guidance in two tight sentences. The trailing 'Behavior:' clause repeats annotation data rather than earning its place, a minor inefficiency.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema and no parameters, the description should hint at what the status report contains (per-subsystem fields, error indicators). It names the subsystems inspected but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape.

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 no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level guidance is needed or missing.

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 (inspect) and enumerates the exact resources covered: LCU REST/WebSocket, CDP, event buffers, live game engine. This scope enumeration clearly distinguishes it from narrow siblings like lol_chat_status or lol_cdp_targets.

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?

Gives concrete activation contexts ('use this tool first when diagnosing connection failures', 'verifying lockfile detection', 'checking allowlist rules and allowEval permissions'). Strong when-to-use guidance, though it names no alternative or when-not-to-use condition.

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