nbl_player_boxscores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure but does not mention safety traits (read-only, authentication, rate limits) or side effects. The basic read behavior is inferred but not explicitly stated.

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 plus a return structure line. It front-loads the purpose and adds necessary detail without 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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a useful return structure. However, it omits explanation of the seasonType parameter, and lacks details on pagination, sorting, or error handling, making it minimally complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It mentions 'one player' (playerId) and 'a season' (year) but does not describe the seasonType parameter (default 'regular'). No details on formats or valid values are given.

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 game-by-game box scores for one player across a season, listing specific stats (points, rebounds, etc.). It identifies itself as 'the score-series / game-log source,' which differentiates it from aggregated stats tools like nbl_player_stats.

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 per-match data via 'game-log source' but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., nbl_player_stats for aggregated stats). No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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