get_aghs_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains fuzzy matching behavior, accepts both names and IDs, and details the exact return dictionary fields. It does not mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., unknown hero), but the provided information gives a solid behavioral model.

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 well-structured with clear sections (use cases, fuzzy matching, args, returns, examples). Every sentence provides useful information or an example, with no unnecessary filler. While longer than minimal descriptions, the added complexity of fuzzy matching and return format justifies the length.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers when to use it, input formats, matching behavior, and provides a detailed breakdown of the return dictionary and examples. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'hero' with a loose anyOf type, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining acceptable forms (display name, internal name, fuzzy match, hero ID) with concrete examples like 'Pudge', 'antimage', and 1. This adds deep semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool gets Aghanim's Scepter and Shard upgrade details for a hero, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hero_details or get_item_details by focusing specifically on Aghanim's upgrades. The verb 'Get' and resource 'Aghanim's upgrade details' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use this when users ask about Aghanim's upgrades' and gives concrete example queries. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to steer an agent correctly.

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