get_hero

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does explain the output composition (complete game data merged with tier and build tags), but it does not mention error behavior, name matching semantics, or whether the operation is a pure read with no side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full hero record') and then enumerates the included data categories in a compact parenthetical list. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description gives a solid inventory of what the returned record contains: combat data, evolution bases, level curves, skills, totem, icon, and tier/build tags. It is mostly complete, though it could be improved by clarifying name matching and not-found behavior.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'name' parameter. However, with only one required parameter and the tool named get_hero, it is reasonably clear that 'name' identifies which hero to retrieve, even though exact-name/format requirements are not documented.

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 defines what the tool returns: a complete hero record with game data merged with tier and build tags. It is more specific than just 'get hero', but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like hero_complete or hero_dossier.

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 phrase 'Full hero record' and 'complete game data' imply this is the tool to use when all hero information is needed, not just a specific stat or skill. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling tools.

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