hero_dossier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by disclosing data provenance: ordinary stats are formula-verified, evolved grades come from live_hero_params, and a reconciliation flag exists for multi-form mis-extraction. It does not describe output structure or error behavior, but this is meaningful contextual detail beyond a generic summary.

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?

Two dense sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The first sentence enumerates the included content, and the second adds verification and flag behavior. Every clause contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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 covers what data is returned and how some of it is validated, making it sufficient for tool selection. However, invocation is incomplete: the accepted hero identifier format is unspecified, there is no output schema, and no guidance about reconciling with sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully complete for a complex aggregator.

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 schema only defines a required string parameter named 'hero', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'one hero' but never specifies what format the hero value should take, whether it is an ID, display name, slug, or how to resolve valid values. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 the tool as a one-call hero aggregator and lists the specific content it returns: combat ratings, evolution-grade formula parameters, HP/ATK values, skills, tier/role, and a recommended build. This effectively distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like get_hero, hero_stats, or hero_skills, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 intended use case is implied: use this when you want comprehensive hero information in a single call. However, the description never explicitly says when not to use it or which alternative tools cover narrower cases, despite many overlapping siblings like get_hero, hero_sheet, hero_stats_calc, and recommend_build.

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