tft-recommend-champion-for-item

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it 'retrieves' recommendations, which aligns with annotations, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal context, meeting the lower bar.

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 wastes no space, making it easy 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 simple input schema with full coverage, the description is adequate for a basic retrieval tool. However, with no output schema and no details on return values or behavior, it leaves gaps in understanding what the tool actually provides, making it 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 100%, with the parameter 'itemId' well-documented in the schema as 'TFT item ID to get champion recommendations for'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or examples beyond this, so it relies on the schema. With high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 as 'retrieving champion recommendations for a specific item' with a specific verb ('retrieving') and resource ('champion recommendations'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'tft-champion-item-build' or 'tft-meta-item-combinations', which might have overlapping functionality in the TFT context, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'tft-champion-item-build' and 'tft-meta-item-combinations' that could be related, the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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