riot_valorant_account

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

No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the basic action. There is no mention of rate limits, authentication requirements (api_key is in schema but not described), error states, or read-only nature. The description fails to provide behavioral context that annotations would typically cover.

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?

A single sentence of 12 words is very concise. The key elements are front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured or include a brief note on the api_key.

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 lookup tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on the return value (no output schema), error handling, or necessary authentication context, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 description maps 'game name' and 'tag line' to the gameName and tagLine parameters, but it does not mention the api_key parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but misses one parameter.

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 tool retrieves a Valorant account using game name and tag line. It is specific to Valorant, differentiating it from other Riot tools like riot_summoner. However, it doesn't specify what 'account' data is returned.

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, no description of prerequisites, and no exclusions. Given the sibling list includes other Riot game tools, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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