espn_cdn_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It notes the tool is 'fast, lightly-cached' and that 'Every request carries ?xhr=1 (added by default)'. It specifies the CDN domain and path slug rules. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, error handling, or details about caching behavior beyond 'lightly-cached', 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 a single concise paragraph of about 100 words, efficiently covering the tool's purpose, data types, path slug rules, coverage limitations, source of gameId, default query parameter, and reference for operations. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool does and its key constraints. However, it lacks detailed parameter documentation and return structure (only 'Returns: (JSON object)'). For a tool with this complexity (multiple operations, path and query parameters), the description is moderately complete but leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 has three parameters (operation, path_params, query_params) with 0% description coverage. The description explains the 'path slug' concept (league instead of sport) and the default query param '?xhr=1', but does not explain how to populate path_params or query_params, nor what valid values for operation are (other than referring to 'espn://cdn/operations'). This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with proper 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 clearly states the tool is a gateway to ESPN CDN live feed, providing scoreboard/game/boxscore/playbyplay JSON. It specifies the path slug is the league (e.g., 'nfl', 'nba') and not the sport, and distinguishes from siblings by noting the CDN covers only front-page leagues and no NHL. This clearly differentiates from other ESPN tools.

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 usage constraints: 'The CDN covers ESPN's front-page leagues only (no `nhl`)', and suggests using the scoreboard operation to get gameId. It also directs to 'Browse espn://cdn/operations' for available operations. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, it implies when to use this tool (fast, lightly-cached CDN data) and when not to use it (leagues not covered).

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