get_hero_duration_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the binning behavior and bucket format, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential caveats like small sample sizes, missing duration buckets, or whether the win rate is aggregate across all brackets. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the key grouping detail and immediately conveys the analytical purpose. No filler words or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup, the description covers the essential output concept (win rate per duration bucket). It does not specify exact return fields or ordering, but the scope is simple enough that an agent can correctly invoke the tool and interpret the result. Minor gaps exist but are not critical.

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 documents hero_id with a clear explanation (resolve names via search_dota_entities and an example). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('binned'), a resource ('hero's win rate'), and the exact grouping (match duration buckets in 5-minute increments). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_hero_stats or get_hero_matchups by focusing on duration-based performance.

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 implies use cases (analyzing hero power curve over game length) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It offers no exclusions or named sibling comparisons, leaving usage largely to inference.

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