pws_get_roster

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'active' roster scope and enumerates returned fields, but does not disclose behavioral details like pagination limits or default parameter effects. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that enumerates all return fields without repetition or fluff. Every phrase adds information, making it highly concise and effective.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description gives a good overview of what is returned, but lacks guidance on how to use the many optional parameters. The presence of annotations reduces some burden, but the overall completeness is only adequate for a tool with 11 params.

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 must compensate for 11 undocumented parameters. It mentions some attributes (alignment, push) that map to filter parameters, but does not explain parameters like lean, brand, search, usageDays, includeStaff, or offset. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond parameter names.

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 lists the active player-company roster with a broad set of attributes (contracts, alignment, push, wages, etc.). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like pws_get_worker (single worker) and pws_get_worker_contracts (contracts only).

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 viewing roster data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not say 'use this instead of pws_get_worker for list views'. Context is present but not spelled out.

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