get_player_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 of disclosing behavior. It mentions the output fields but does not describe any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what happens with invalid parameters. The description is too sparse to convey operational behavior.

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 purpose and key outputs. It contains no filler or repetition, making it efficient, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 20 parameters and no output schema, the description gives only a high-level view of the output fields. It lacks critical context such as default behavior, pagination semantics, or how the standard filters affect results. An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema, but the description does not provide enough situational context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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?

All 20 parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond noting 'the standard filters', which is vague and does not compensate or enhance 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 clearly states that the tool returns the heroes a player has played, with specific fields listed (hero names, games, wins, win rate, with/against splits). This is a specific resource and action, distinct from sibling tools like get_player_hero_rankings, which focus on rankings.

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_player_hero_rankings or get_player_matches. The phrase '(with the standard filters)' implies common filters but offers no explicit selection criteria or exclusions.

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