get_tournament_maps

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the returned content type, but it does not mention caveats such as auth requirements, missing match data behavior, or rate limits. For a read-style tool this is adequate but thin.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a useful parameter hint in the second. The cryptic 'Builder+' phrase is not explained, which prevents a top score.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters徒, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of understanding. It covers the main output and match_slug format, yet leaves sport values and the exact returned structure underspecified.

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 no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds real semantics for match_slug by showing accepted forms, but it only implicitly hints that 'sport' is CS2 and gives no allowed value details. Coverage is partial rather than complete.

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 a clear resource ('tournament map picks/bans + T/CT winrates') for a match, which defines what the tool returns. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools such as get_match or get_matches, so it misses the top score.

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 an explicit input format hint ('match_slug = KashRock -vs- slug or kr_match_id') and 'Builder+' suggests a context, so usage is implied. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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