get_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output format, included data fields, and the difference between parsed and unparsed matches. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but provides useful context beyond a simple 'get match' statement.

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 moderately sized and front-loads the core purpose and output style, followed by details about optional draft data and parsed matches. It is informative without being verbose.

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 return content and highlights the optional include sections through the schema. There is no output schema, but the description explains what the base response contains. Missing details like error cases or pagination are minor for a single-match fetch tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, documenting all parameters and their defaults. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 the tool gets a Dota 2 match by id and presents it as a compact, human-readable view with resolved names and labels. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_matches or get_pro_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 implies usage for retrieving match details and notes that it works with parsed matches for richer data, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. However, the focus on match id makes the intended context clear.

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