mlb_game_content

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The return structure is described, but behavioral context is minimal.

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 very concise with one sentence and a return structure line. It front-loads the purpose, but it omits critical information about the parameter and usage. It is short but incomplete.

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 lists return fields (editorial, media, highlights, summary, gameNotes), providing some context. However, it lacks parameter explanation and behavioral transparency. For a simple tool, it is moderately complete but has clear gaps.

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 description does not explain the single required parameter (gamePk) at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning or context for 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 provides editorial/media content for a game, listing specific types (highlights, recap, media, box-score-and-storylines bundle). This distinguishes it from other MLB data tools like mlb_boxscore (stats) or mlb_live_feed (live data).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'when present' for the bundle, but lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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