faceit_getHubMatches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only operation with 'Retrieve' and 'list', and mentions the endpoint method GET in the endpoint line. However, it does not explicitly state safety, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured with a summary, usage notes, endpoint, parameter list, and return hint. Each section serves a purpose, though a few words could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 covers the main functionality and parameters but lacks details on return structure, pagination behavior, and error scenarios. Given no output schema, this is a partial gap, but the tool's purpose is straightforward.

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 description provides detailed parameter documentation including type, required flag, default values, constraints, and allowed values (e.g., type enum). This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage.

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 retrieves all matches of a hub, using specific verbs 'Retrieve' and 'list'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getHubMembers and getHubLeaderboards by name, ensuring the agent can select the correct tool.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (to list hub matches) and provides two alternative tools for related tasks (getHubMembers, getHubLeaderboards). It does not cover all possible alternatives but offers clear guidance.

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