hero_complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It enumerates exactly what the record includes: combat stats, base per evolution, full level curves for forms 1-80, main skill per level, totem skill, and icon. This gives an agent a solid picture of the tool's output without needing an output schema.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that lists the key contents immediately. Each phrase adds substantive information, with only minor redundancy between 'authoritative' and 'all-in-one.'

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 description gives a good inventory of return fields, which matters since there is no output schema or annotations. However, it omits parameter format guidance and does not clarify which sibling tools cover narrower use cases, leaving some contextual ambiguity for an agent choosing among hero_complete, get_hero, hero_stats, and hero_sheet.

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 input schema has one required 'hero' string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never explains what value 'hero' should take—whether a name, ID, alias, or display name—nor how to format it. This is a notable gap for a tool with a single critical 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 identifies a comprehensive, single-hero resource and enumerates its contents (combat stats, evolution bases, level curves, skills, icon). It is distinguishable from narrower siblings like hero_stats, totem_skill, and get_hero, though it does not explicitly name them or use a specific verb.

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 'authoritative all-in-one hero entry' implies this tool is for cases where the full hero record is needed, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as hero_stats, totem_skill, or get_hero. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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