nhl_roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints by specifying the exact return structure (three arrays, NOT one players list), listing output fields, and stating 'Auth: none needed.' This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured and concise: a one-sentence summary, a clear return format block, a concrete example, and an auth note. Every section adds value without redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure with fields and an example, making it complete for typical use. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., empty rosters, null headshots) but is sufficient for the tool's simple parameter set.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (team abbreviation and season format) with 100% coverage. The description provides an example ('team': 'TOR', 'season': '20242025') that reinforces the schema but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what's already documented.

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 what the tool does: returns a club's full roster for a season, split by position, with specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on roster composition and adding the explicit note about three parallel arrays rather than a flattened list.

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 retrieving a roster) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention sibling tools like nhl_player or nhl_schedule. The example and return format help, but explicit guidance is missing.

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