rank_heroes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the stat is computed, that stars/level are inputs, and that newest epics may be missing from results. However, it does not disclose sorting order, output shape, or how limit is applied, which are meaningful for a ranking tool.

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 sentences with the action and key constraints front-loaded, plus a useful data-freshness caveat at the end. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 is adequate for basic invocation since all parameters are optional and the core behavior is stated, but it omits the return shape, sorting direction, and limit semantics. Without an output schema or annotations, these gaps make it only minimally complete.

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. It clarifies stat ('HP/Attack'), stars, and level, but says nothing about 'limit', leaving its semantics to be inferred from its name and default value.

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 names a specific action ('Rank'), resource ('heroes'), and core dimensions ('computed stat (HP/Attack) at given stars/level'). It is clear enough to be distinguished from siblings like compare_heroes or hero_stats, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use rank_heroes instead of alternatives such as hero_stats or compare_heroes, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Rank' and the stat/level parameters.

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