list_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 does convey that this is a read-only listing operation sorted by tier and that tier/mode act as filters, which is meaningful behavioral information. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, limit behavior, or what happens when tier is null, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter examples are compact and scannable. Every sentence 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 simple, low-complexity tool with no required parameters, the description is mostly adequate: an agent could invoke it with defaults or use the stated mode/tier hints. But it omits limit semantics, return value expectations, and any differentiation from the closely named sibling 'tier_list'. Given no output schema and no annotations, these omissions leave the context incomplete.

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 for the bare schema. It adds helpful semantics for 'mode' with examples ('overall/Guild War/Arena/Dungeons') and for 'tier' with filter examples ('S+, S, A+...'), which goes beyond the schema. The 'limit' parameter is not explained at all, even though it has a numeric default, so the compensation is only partial.

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 states the action and resource: 'List heroes ranked by tier,' so an agent understands what the tool does. It also gives concrete examples for mode and tier, which makes the purpose more specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'tier_list', which appears to overlap in function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Sibling tools like 'tier_list', 'rank_heroes', and 'get_hero' suggest related use cases, but the description does not explain how to choose among them. The mode and tier examples imply a browsing context, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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