get_heroes_played

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting order ('sorted by games played, descending'), pagination behavior (offset), filtering effects, and the exact return structure. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention potential rate limits, but these are implicitly obvious for a stats query.

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 long but well-structured with clear headings (Args, Returns, Common queries, Example). Every sentence provides useful information—including example queries and a concrete JSON output—without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, so agents can quickly grasp functionality.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema whose presence is indicated, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameter semantics, return fields, common usage patterns, and a full example output. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to make incorrect assumptions.

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%, but the description's Args section compensates fully by explaining every parameter's meaning, acceptable types, and examples (e.g., lane_role accepts 'mid', 'carry', offlane', 'pos 1-4'; with_hero_id accepts names or IDs). It adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed statistics for all heroes a player has played'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling get_player_win_loss by stating 'For simple win/loss totals without hero breakdown, use get_player_win_loss() instead.'

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 explicit usage context with example user queries (e.g., 'What heroes does [player] play?') and demonstrates when to use this tool. It also names the alternative tool for simpler queries, fulfilling the when-to-use vs. alternatives criterion.

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