cricketaustralia_playlist

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It only describes the return structure, leaving safety and side effects unclear.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the second sentence detailing return structure could be more efficient. Overall, it is concise without verbosity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the core purpose and partial return shape, but lacks parameter details (especially 'detail' and 'pageSize') and behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, yet the description only explains the 'playlistId' parameter implicitly. The 'detail' and 'pageSize' parameters are not mentioned or explained, adding no value beyond their names.

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 the tool returns a single Pulselive playlist by ID, using specific verbs and resource, and gives an example (match highlights playlist). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cricketaustralia_content' which may return all content.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implicitly requires a playlist ID, but does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. Sibling tools exist for different retrieval needs, but no comparison is provided.

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