faceit_get_match_stats

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists included stats (kills, ADR, KAST, headshots, rounds) but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or confirmation that it is read-only. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read, but more detail could be expected.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what the tool returns (stats) and where to get the input. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning failure cases or whether all rounds are included, but overall it adequately covers the essentials.

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 description for match_id is minimal ('FACEIT match_id'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds meaningful value by specifying the source of the match_id ('Use a match_id from faceit_get_match_history'), which directly aids the agent in populating the parameter correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('detailed per-round, per-player stats for a specific FACEIT match') and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like faceit_get_match_details by emphasizing the granular per-round/per-player nature.

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 gives clear contextual guidance by telling the agent to use a match_id from faceit_get_match_history, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools for exclusion.

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