get_constants

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It declares that the resource is 'raw' and that constants are English-only, which is meaningful and goes beyond a generic getter. It stops short of stating the response format or error behavior, but for a resource-lookup tool this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences contain all essential information. The first sentence immediately states the action and gives a representative list; the second adds a valuable note about localization. No redundant wording exists.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description tells the agent which resource names to use and warns about the English-only behavior. It doesn't explicitly describe the returned data's structure, but the term 'resource' and enumerable constants imply a straightforward JSON-like payload. Minor ambiguity remains about invalid resource handling.

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 schema already fully describes the single 'resource' parameter with examples. The description adds extra examples and the English-only caveat, reinforcing parameter meaning and disambiguating acceptable values. Given 100% schema coverage, the additional values help but are not critical.

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?

Description opens with a clear verb+resource pattern: 'Get a raw OpenDota game-constants resource,' then lists a wide range of concrete resource names (heroes, items, abilities, item_ids, etc.). This makes the tool's scope obvious and distinguishes it from the many sibling lookup tools that fetch specific stats or matches.

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 supplies clear context: use this tool for raw game-constant data. It further tells the agent not to use it when localized names are needed, recommending 'tools with a language parameter' instead. However, it names no specific sibling tool as the alternative, so the routing is partly implicit.

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