get_trait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get full details' but fails to mention read-only nature, error handling for missing traits, or any prerequisites. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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: first states the purpose and output contents, second gives usage guidance. No filler words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (breakpoints, scaling, champions). This is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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 schema explains the 'name' parameter as 'exact or partial match'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, but it does explain what the result includes, which indirectly helps. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states 'Get full details for a TFT trait' and lists specific contents (breakpoint thresholds, scaling values, all champions). It differentiates from siblings like get_champion (champion details) and search_traits (search function).

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 includes 'Use this to understand synergy requirements,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to search_traits.

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