tft-play-style-comment

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 does not contradict. The description adds value by specifying the tool provides 'comments,' implying analysis or insights, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or output format, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has annotations covering safety (read-only, non-destructive) and a well-documented input schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks output details (no output schema) and deeper context like what 'comments' include or how they are generated. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but annotations help mitigate gaps.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'puuid' and 'region' (including an enum for region). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain how these parameters affect the comments (e.g., if puuid identifies a player for personalized analysis). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 states the tool 'provides comments on the playstyle of TFT champions,' which clearly indicates its function. However, it lacks specificity about what 'comments' entail (e.g., analysis, tips, summaries) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'tft-champion-item-build' or 'tft-recommend-champion-for-item,' which are related but distinct. The purpose is understandable but vague in scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for a specific player or champion), or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'tft-champion-item-build' or 'tft-meta-trend-deck-list.' This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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