mlb_home_run_derby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral aspects. It describes the return structure but does not explicitly state if the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or if any authentication is needed. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. The return structure is shown in a pseudo-code format, which helps understanding without excessive verbosity. However, it could be slightly more structured.

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?

For a tool with 1 required parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return shape. But it lacks details on where to get the gamePk, potential errors, or field explanations. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 only parameter, gamePk, is described merely as 'for a derby gamePk,' adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify what a gamePk is, how to find it, or any constraints (e.g., integer required). It falls short.

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 'Home Run Derby bracket + results' for a given gamePk. The verb 'returns' is implied and the resource is well-specified. It distinguishes from sibling mlb tools since no other tool explicitly covers the Home Run Derby.

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?

It specifies 'for a derby gamePk' indicating the required parameter. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mlb_boxscore or mlb_schedule), nor any prerequisites or context for the gamePk.

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