mlb_game_boxscore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return includes both teams' batting, pitching, and fielding lines, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention read-only safety explicitly, response size, error behavior, or whether the game must be final, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, immediately front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The second sentence adds the key return detail without fluff. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description's mention of 'batting, pitching, and fielding lines' gives a general idea of the return, but lacks structural details like grouping by team or player field names. It also does not cover edge cases (e.g., postponed games, live vs final). Adequate for a simple one-param tool but not thorough.

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% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, describing it as 'Numeric MLB game id'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond contextualizing that the game is the target. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full load.

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 clear action ('Get') and resource ('MLB player boxscore'), but the first sentence is slightly misleading since the tool name indicates a game boxscore. The second sentence clarifies it returns both teams' player lines for a game, so the overall purpose is clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like mlb_game or mlb_player_stats, but the name and content scope do so implicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mlb_game, mlb_player_stats, or mlb_game_play_by_play. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a completed game or how to find the game id. The description does not include any exclusion or preference context.

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