get_match_telemetry

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

Although no annotations exist, the description declares 'Read-only' and notes availability constraints ('during and after a match'), providing key behavioral context. It lacks detail on error handling or authorization, but for a simple stats tool this is sufficient.

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?

The description is three sentences: first states core function, second adds usage context, third differentiates from a sibling. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and availability. It lists the returned statistics, providing enough detail for the agent to understand the tool's output, though it omits potential error responses.

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 input schema has one parameter 'connection_id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'connection_id' refers to or its format, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from context.

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 explicitly states 'Return server-tracked match statistics for both teams' and lists specific fields (total tokens, thinking time, etc.), clearly defining the tool's purpose and distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_history'.

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 specifies when to use ('Available during and after a match', 'post-game analysis or mid-game cost monitoring') and explicitly states the alternative: 'For game-state history use get_history instead.'

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