get_hero_players

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention sorting, pagination, freshness of 'recent', or whether authentication is required. The only behavioral hint is 'recently', which is vague.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core information (players, hero, recency) and lists the returned fields. It is efficient, but omits a clear action verb and any contextual details.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, an agent would not know the exact return format, sorting, or limits. The description gives field names but lacks critical details about 'recent' semantics and how to interpret win rates. It is minimally viable for a simple tool but not fully 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?

The input schema fully describes hero_id with guidance to resolve names via search_dota_entities. The description itself adds no parameter information, but since schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is well-documented, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool returns: players who have played a hero recently, along with account id, name, games, wins, and win rates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools oriented around matches or player-specific stats, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 such as get_hero_recent_matches or get_player_heroes. It only describes the output content, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name.

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