compare_heroes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that stats are computed and shown side-by-side, but it does not disclose the kind of stats returned, whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or any output format details.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and scannable, though slightly more detail about computed stats or output could improve value without sacrificing structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. An agent is left uncertain about what stats are computed, what the response looks like, and what edge cases exist for invalid or missing heroes.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by indicating hero_a and hero_b are the two heroes and that stars/level are shared across both, which clarifies parameter relationships. However, it does not explain parameter ranges, defaults, or expected hero name formats.

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-plus-resource structure: side-by-side computed stats for two heroes. The 'two heroes at the same stars/level' phrasing clearly differentiates this from single-hero stat tools like get_hero or hero_stats.

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 implies the tool should be used when comparing two heroes under identical stars/level conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as rank_heroes or hero_dossier.

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