pl_team

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by listing return fields ({name, shortName, abbreviation, player_id}), indicating a read operation. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or behavior on missing IDs, which would be expected for a data retrieval tool.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with purpose and return format. No superfluous content; every sentence adds value.

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 simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format but omits details like error handling, rate limits, or the significance of player_id. Sufficient for basic use but incomplete for robust agent decision-making.

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 has two integer parameters (cid, tid) with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their meaning beyond 'by id'. The abbreviations suggest 'competition id' and 'team id', but this is not explicitly stated, leaving ambiguity about which IDs are required.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves a single team by competition and team IDs. The description 'One team within a competition by id' uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pl_teams (list) or pl_team_form (form 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?

Implies usage for fetching a specific team within a competition, but lacks explicit cues on when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., pl_teams for listing, pl_team_form for form). No alternative recommendations or exclusions provided.

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