mlb_team_roster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return format in detail, which is good, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, performance considerations, or error responses. The transparency is adequate but not exceptional.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first states the purpose and available roster types, the second gives the return JSON structure. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the return format but fails to explain most parameters or provide usage context. The agent would lack sufficient information for correct invocation.

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%, so the description should explain all parameters. It only explains 'rosterType' with its valid values. The other four parameters (date, season, teamId, hydrate) are not described. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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 retrieves a team's roster with player details including position and jersey number. It specifies the rosterType options (active, 40-man, full-season, depth chart) and provides the return structure. This distinguishes it from sibling mlb tools like mlb_team_alumni or mlb_team_roster is uniquely about current roster.

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 for fetching a team's roster but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like mlb_team_alumni or mlb_team_personnel. It lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, or complementary tools.

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