mlb_team_roster

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields and the roster_type enum values, but does not mention any limitations, authentication requirements, or default behavior for parameters like season or roster_type. It only lightly describes the behavior, so it remains a minimal disclosure.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second lists the returned data, and the third clarifies the enum values. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 is adequate for a simple read-only roster tool, but it lacks some context like the need to obtain `team_id` from another source (e.g., `mlb_teams`) and detailed output structure since there is no output schema. The season default is only in the schema, not in the description. Thus, it is not 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?

The schema already describes all three parameters, but the description adds crucial semantics by enumerating the accepted values for `roster_type` (`active`, `40Man`, `fullSeason`), which the schema only labels as 'Roster type'. This goes beyond the schema and enhances correct invocation, though it does not detail other parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('MLB team roster') and enumerates the returned fields (players, jersey numbers, positions, roster status). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `espn_team_roster` which also retrieves a team roster, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to other roster tools (e.g., `espn_team_roster`). The only usage hint is the roster_type enum values, which are parameter guidance rather than overall tool usage.

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