riot_match_history

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose read-only behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response structure. Minimal disclosure beyond the action itself.

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?

Single sentence is efficient, but sacrifices necessary detail. Could be structured with a brief line about parameters or behavior without losing conciseness.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool. Missing details about region conventions, API key handling, and response format.

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%. The description mentions only PUUID as identifier, but does not explain region (e.g., required format like 'na1'), count (max number?), or api_key. Parameters lack context for correct usage.

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 clearly states the action (Get), resource (match history), and identifier (PUUID). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like riot_get_match or riot_ranked, leaving ambiguity about what 'match history' entails versus single-match retrieval.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., riot_get_match for a single match). No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., obtaining PUUID from riot_summoner). No context about required region format or API key usage.

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