get_roster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns a team's roster and unfilled starting slots, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say it is read-only, mention any side effects, or describe error conditions (e.g., invalid team_id). It also does not mention authentication requirements, which are implied by 'your team.' This is minimal but not contradictory.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the default behavior. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description should outline what the response contains. It says 'current roster' and 'unfilled starting slots,' which is the key information, but it does not describe the structure, whether player details are included, or any edge cases (e.g., empty roster, invalid team). Given the low complexity (one optional param), this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 only parameter, team_id, has zero schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that it defaults to ESPN_TEAM_ID when null, which is valuable. However, it does not elaborate on what team_id represents or the valid range/format, leaving some ambiguity. It compensates for the schema gap reasonably well but could be more explicit.

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 a specific verb ('get') and resource ('roster'), and goes further by specifying it also reports which starting slots are unfilled. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_available_players and get_player by focusing on the team's current roster and lineup status. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understood.

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 provides clear context by noting that it defaults to your team (ESPN_TEAM_ID), which implicitly tells the agent when no team_id is provided. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but given the sibling set, the use case is evident. It lacks explicit exclusions or 'use instead' guidance, so it misses the top score.

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