team_readinessCheck whether a team has marked itself ready to present, plus whether it is banned or currently accessible for judging.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes | Id of the team. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by exposing exactly what state is inspected: self-marked readiness, ban status, and judging accessibility. It does not contradict the annotations and gives useful operational context beyond the schema.
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 compact sentence carries the full purpose, lists all three checked conditions, and contains no filler. The key detail is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description adequately captures what is being queried. It does not explicitly state the return shape, but the phrasing naturally implies the result contains readiness, ban, and judging-access indicators; mentioning this would make it 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with team_id described as 'Id of the team,' and the description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the only parameter.
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?
States a specific verb 'Check' with a precise resource: team readiness. Naming the exact checks (ready to present, banned, judging-accessible) distinguishes it from generic team retrieval tools like team_get.
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 when to use it: whenever an agent needs a team's readiness status. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so an agent must infer that team_get or team_list would be used for general team information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are grouped by domain prefix and mostly target a distinct resource, but there are several near-overlapping read clusters — notably whoami/event_roles/event_my_membership (all answer 'what roles at event X'), submission_get/submission_page, team_open_roles/team_seeking_members, and company_employees/company_roster. The descriptions do an exceptional job of steering ('use this, not that'), so misselection is unlikely, but the sheer number of such pairs keeps this from a 5.
The dominant domain_prefix + noun/verb pattern (event_, team_, submission_, company_, article_) is consistent and readable. Deviations: list_api_endpoints/list_capabilities invert the word order (verb-first) versus event_list/submission_list elsewhere, search and whoami carry no domain prefix, account_how_to_sign_in is a phrase, and read verbs vary between get/list/browse/page/preview.
60 tools is far beyond the 25+ threshold, and the surface is purely read-only — the breadth comes from extremely granular views (22 event_* tools) and many singleton catalogs (event_cities, event_types, event_background_images, article_languages, tag_list, tech_list, company_vacancies) plus six meta/informational tools. The domain is genuinely broad and every tool is distinct, so it reads as heavy rather than chaotic, but the count is still excessive.
The set contains zero write tools — no create, update, or delete anywhere — yet the descriptions repeatedly direct callers to absent tools: event_create, event_set_branding, event_add_sponsor, event_submit_registration_answers, invite_join, team_post, team_assign_role, team_remove_member, company_fire_employee, account_export_data, and more. An agent following the descriptions will call nonexistent tools and fail. The read/browse coverage is very thorough, but the complete absence of the write side (which the descriptions themselves treat as existing) is a significant gap.