get_gamelogs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses per-map granularity, included stats, conditional hero field, accepted player aliases, and retention limits by environment. It does not describe output structure or pagination, but the expected list-of-gamelogs behavior is clear.

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?

Three short sentences, with purpose first, then player formats, then environment retention. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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?

The definition is strong for a simple list tool but incomplete: no output schema, no annotations, and the required sport parameter is not covered. An agent can likely select the tool correctly, but may not know how to populate sport without external context.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does for player ('slug, nickname, or kr_pl_*'), but it never describes the required sport parameter or the limit parameter, leaving a large invocation gap for a required input.

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 states the resource and scope: 'Per-map player gamelogs' with specific stats (kills, ADR, gold, GPM, hero). This is clear and distinct from aggregate player stats, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool to differentiate against.

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?

It provides useful invocation context such as accepted player identifiers and environment retention boundaries, but it never says when to prefer this tool over get_player_stats_full, get_player_snapshot, or other player data tools. The appropriate use case is only implied by the purpose.

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