tft-champion-item-build

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world behavior, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal context beyond this, as it doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'retrieving' entails (e.g., real-time data or cached info). With annotations covering basic safety, a 3 is appropriate for the limited added value.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence serves a clear function, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, output format, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a retrieval tool in a crowded domain, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'championId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or valid champion IDs. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is justified, as no extra semantic value is contributed.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving champion item build information for TFT. It specifies the verb 'retrieving' and the resource 'champion item build information', making it understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tft-meta-item-combinations' or 'tft-recommend-champion-for-item', which might have overlapping functionality, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for current meta builds or general information. With many sibling tools in the TFT and League of Legends domains, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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