get_heroes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content returned (names, attributes, attack type, roles, base stats) and indicates it lists all heroes, but it does not mention pagination, response format, or any rate limits. For a simple list endpoint, this 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists the returned fields. It is concise, every word contributes, and it ends with a clear usage hint. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 simple list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return content. It could specify the exact structure (e.g., array of objects) but 'list all' implies a list. The inclusion of base stats and localized names gives enough context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 already provides a detailed description of the 'language' parameter, covering accepted codes, tags, and the default behavior. The tool description adds marginal context by mentioning 'localized + English' names, which indirectly relates to the language parameter, but it does not go beyond the schema's 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 uses a clear verb ('List') and specifies the exact resource ('all Dota 2 heroes') along with the content fields (names, primary attribute, attack type, roles, base stats). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hero_stats or get_hero_matchups, which focus on statistics and matchups.

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 states it is a 'good starting point for hero questions,' which implies a broad use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives for more specific hero data (e.g., get_hero_stats for statistics). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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