pws_get_roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the 'active' roster qualifier and the range of fields returned, but does not disclose details like pagination, default limits, or any side effects (though none are expected).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. It lists the key content areas efficiently without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin to be considered complete. It does not mention the tool's filtering capabilities (e.g., by brand, gender, alignment, or availability) or how parameters affect results, leaving the agent guessing on valid invocations.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters (push, brand, limit, gender, search, alignment, usageDays, includeStaff, availableOnly). It only lists output fields, providing no additional meaning to help an agent understand how to use the filters or what the parameters control.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'active player-company roster' and enumerates the included data fields (contracts, alignment, push, wages, etc.), making the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct from sibling tools like pws_get_worker_contracts or pws_get_worker.

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 the tool is for roster-level queries by stating it lists the active roster with many attributes, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions (e.g., 'for single worker details use pws_get_worker'), so it stops short of the strongest guidance.

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