hero_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the output categories and implies a read-only aggregation behavior, but it relies on the vague word 'EVERYTHING' and does not mention limitations, response shape, or what is omitted.

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 short and front-loaded with the main value proposition. The trailing 'one-stop hero overview' is somewhat redundant with the first sentence, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema and one undocumented parameter, the description provides enough to choose the tool but not enough to invoke it confidently. It also does not disambiguate against several apparently overlapping sibling tools, leaving significant context missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to clarify the hero parameter's accepted format or values. It merely restates that the call concerns 'a hero,' adding no meaning beyond the property name and type already in the schema.

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 the tool as a one-call hero overview and itemizes the returned content: complete stats, main skill, totem skill summary, tier, and a recommended build. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the aggregate composition makes the purpose obvious.

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 'one-stop hero overview' implies use when a broad hero summary is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. With siblings like get_hero, hero_complete, hero_dossier, and recommend_build, the agent is left to infer routing.

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