Assemble team

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds the useful behavioral trait 'deterministic', but it does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, requires permissions, or handles edge cases such as too few matching heroes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that delivers the action, target, criterion, and determinism guarantee without any wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and main input well. The missing 'size' semantics and lack of alternative guidance keep it from being fully complete, though the schema's default and parameter name make the gap recoverable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must define both parameters. It explains 'threat' via 'described threat', but never mentions 'size', which is an optional but significant input. The agent must infer size means team size from the parameter name and default.

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 ('Pick'), a clear resource ('heroes'), and a precise selection criterion ('whose powers best fit a described threat'). The added 'deterministic' qualifier further distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like find_heroes_by_power and list_heroes.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when there is a described threat and the agent needs to assemble a fitting hero team. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the threat-based framing gives enough context for correct selection.

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