台灣運動賽事日程

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the default target event but says nothing about return format, error behavior for unknown events, or how the countdown handles past events or timezones.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine efficiency.

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 one-parameter tool with an undocumented parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It neither explains the parameter nor confirms the return value, leaving key invocation details to guesswork.

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 single parameter 'q' has 0% schema description coverage and is never explained in the description. An agent cannot tell whether 'q' is an event name, ID, or free-text query, nor how it interacts with the stated default.

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 concrete operation on a clear resource: it returns the number of days remaining until an event starts, with a named default target. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_sports_event or sports_calendar, so an agent must infer when this countdown is preferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sports_event or sports_calendar. The only contextual clue is the default fallback, which implies usage but does not establish when or when not to call it.

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

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 does disclose the return payload (date, venue, organizer, key dates, national-team info, broadcast platforms/sources) and states that lookups are read-only in nature, but says nothing about failure behavior, matching strategy, or auth requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence: verb+scope first, then the returned fields, then the input flexibility. No redundant or filler text.

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, the description is the only source of return-value information and it adequately enumerates what comes back, plus accepted input forms. It lacks only disambiguation against the near-duplicate sibling lookup_any_sports_event.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the lone parameter 'q' is completely undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does so by declaring that Chinese or English names are both accepted and giving concrete examples (世界12強, 台灣大賽, TPBL, LA28), which materially shapes how an agent fills the argument.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (查單一賽事 = look up a single event) and enumerates the returned content areas (date, venue, organizer, key dates, Chinese Taipei info, Taiwan broadcast platforms). This clearly separates it from the plural sibling list_sports_events, though it gives no hint at how it differs from lookup_any_sports_event or taiwan_broadcast.

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 word 單一 ('single') implies the tool is for one specific event rather than a listing, which is a usable usage signal, but no when-to-use condition or alternative tool is ever named despite six siblings covering overlapping territory.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (日期、地點、狀態、台灣轉播) and that filtering is supported, which goes beyond a bare statement of purpose. But it omits operational traits an agent would want: whether results are paginated, the default date range when no filter is given, and whether the broadcast info is always present or conditional.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource, scope, and coverage before the filter clause. Nothing is wasted, though the mid-sentence enumeration of leagues and return fields makes it slightly long compared to the core filtering message.

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?

Given five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonable work by stating the returned fields and the available filters. It still leaves gaps around date parameter format, default scope, result limits, and how this differs from the several sibling calendar/lookup tools, so it is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (just the taiwan flag), so the description needs to compensate. It mentions filtering by 項目/狀態/日期, which maps onto sport, status, and from/to, but adds no format detail for from/to (date syntax, timezone, inclusivity) and never clarifies that taiwan is a boolean scope filter. Partial compensation only.

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 (列出) and resource (運動賽事), narrowed by geography and time window (台灣關注的 2026–2028), and enumerates the covered leagues (中職、MLB、NBA、TPBL, 亞運, 12強, 奧運). It also names the return fields, making the tool easy to identify. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as get_sports_event or lookup_any_sports_event, which is the only thing keeping this from a 5.

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?

It says the results can be filtered by 項目、狀態、日期, which implies a browse/list use case rather than a single-event lookup. However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like whats_on, sports_calendar, or get_sports_event, nor does it say when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Disclosing the Wikidata source is useful context, but the description says nothing about matching/fuzzy behavior, what happens when no event is found, or rate limits. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys source, scope, and returned fields with no wasted words. Slightly dense but appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it omits any explanation of the 'q' input, which is the main thing an agent must supply, leaving the definition only marginally 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 single parameter 'q' has no schema description (coverage 0%), and the description does not explain its format or whether it expects an event name, free-text query, or Wikidata Q-ID. With 0% coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 gives a specific verb (查/look up) and resource (任何運動賽事/any sports event), plus the data source (Wikidata 公開資料) and the fields returned (日期、地點、項目、冠軍、官方網站). This clearly distinguishes what it does, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like get_sports_event or list_sports_events.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_sports_event or list_sports_events. The agent is left to infer that this is the generic Wikidata-backed lookup without any routing criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the month argument is optional, what the default range is when omitted (required params = 0), or how results are ordered/formatted. It implies a read-only calendar lookup but never states that, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of missing information rather than disciplined compression.

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 tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and an optional parameter, the description should at least clarify default behavior when month is omitted and the nature of the returned date list. Instead it leaves the agent guessing on both, and offers no routing against five related sibling tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its YYYY-MM format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the conceptual link that month scopes the listing, with no extra format or edge-case detail.

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 gives a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (各賽事的開幕、決賽與關鍵日期 – each event's opening, finals and key dates) scoped by month, so the agent knows what comes back. However, it never distinguishes this calendar view from siblings like list_sports_events or whats_on, which sound like overlapping ways to enumerate events.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of any of the six sibling tools. The agent is left to guess whether this or list_sports_events/whats_on is the right call for a given question.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results include sources (附來源) and gives example event categories. It says nothing about coverage limits, data freshness, whether results are region-restricted, or how the broadcast lookup behaves when no match exists.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded with the clarifying examples and source note trailing. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than economy.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description is the only source of information, yet it omits the query semantics, result shape beyond 'platforms with sources', and any behavioural caveats. For a tool that must disambiguate itself from six siblings, this is not sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single query parameter q is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The agent cannot tell whether q expects an event name, a sport, a league, or a date, leaving the only input effectively unexplained.

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 names a specific resource (Taiwan TV/internet broadcast platforms for events like the Asian Games and CPBL) and adds a scope note (附來源). However it is a bare noun phrase with no action verb, so the agent must infer whether it queries, resolves, or lists broadcasters, and it never contrasts itself with generic siblings like get_sports_event or whats_on.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent receives zero help deciding between this and the six sibling event tools, despite clear overlap in the sports-event domain.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default window (7 days from today) and the timezone (Taiwan time), but says nothing about read-only nature, return format, or pagination behavior for a listing tool.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the scope and appends the default window and timezone. No wasted text, though brevity comes at the cost of usage guidance.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the temporal scope and timezone but leaves 'important dates' undefined and does not distinguish this tool from the six sibling alternatives.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: 'date' is documented as YYYY-MM-DD while 'days' has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that the range starts from a given day and defaults to 7 days, which the schema does not encode as a default.

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 resource and scope: in-progress events and important dates within a day-range starting from a given date. It is clear enough for an agent to act, but it offers no differentiation from siblings such as sports_calendar or list_sports_events.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like sports_calendar, event_countdown, or list_sports_events. The only guidance is the built-in default window, which describes behavior rather than selection criteria.

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