afl_ladders_get

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 behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return structure and that it is 'up to current round', but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any rate limits or side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral traits.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and including a return type structure and example. Every sentence adds value, though the example could be more detailed. No unnecessary content.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the return structure and a usage example. However, it lacks explanation of the parameter and behavioral context, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.

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 one required parameter (compSeasonId integer) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what compSeasonId is or how to obtain it. It only mentions 'comp season' in the purpose, which is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the 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?

The description clearly states it returns a competition ladder for a given comp season up to the current round, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource 'ladders'. It provides an example for clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other AFL tools that might return similar data, though none are specifically ladder-related among siblings.

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 usage when a competition ladder is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context are given.

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