get_scenarios_lane_roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It fully discloses the varying output structure based on which parameters are provided, lists each timing entry field with types, and gives a rich example that even shows interpretation. It also notes that at least one parameter is required, adding important behavioral context.

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 sections (Args, Returns, Common queries, Example) and a front-loaded purpose sentence. Some example queries are repetitive, but each section adds distinct value for an agent, so the length is mostly warranted.

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 only two parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, this description fully compensates. It covers all input combinations, return shapes for each case, field definitions, an example output, and even a sample interpretation. The agent is left with no ambiguity about invocation or results.

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 0%, but the description thoroughly documents both parameters. It explains accepted integer codes and string aliases for lane_role, hero_name ID and name formats, and provides concrete examples like '86 for Rubick' and 'Anti-Mage'. It also explains the effect of providing each parameter alone or together.

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 win rates for heroes in specific lane roles segmented by game duration.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_scenarios_item_timings by focusing on lane roles and game duration, and it lists concrete user query examples.

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 extensive usage guidance, including exact user questions, common query patterns, and parameter combination rules. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for exclusion, but it makes the intended use case unmistakable through examples such as 'Which lane should I play [hero] in for short games?'

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