tft-augments-metadata-resources

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the output format (CSV) and listing the exact fields returned (apiName, desc, name, tier, imageUrl). While annotations already indicate it's read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, the description provides concrete implementation details about the response structure that aren't covered by structured fields.

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 perfectly front-loaded in a single, efficient sentence that contains all essential information: action, resource, format, fields, and parameter context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only tool with excellent annotations and full parameter documentation, the description provides nearly complete context. It specifies the output format and exact fields, though without an output schema, it doesn't detail CSV structure (headers, ordering, etc.). The combination of description and structured data leaves only minor gaps about output formatting specifics.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'lang' parameter with its enum values and purpose. The description mentions 'specified language' but doesn't add meaningful semantic information beyond what's already in the schema's comprehensive description field.

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 verb ('Retrieves'), resource ('metadata for all Teamfight Tactics augments'), and specific output format ('CSV format') with explicit fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on TFT augments metadata rather than champion data, esports, or other game modes.

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 description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('for all augments in the specified language') and implies it's for retrieving comprehensive augment metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for similar data needs.

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