List athletes in group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: names are resolved from the coach's roster (which implies the output includes names, not just IDs). It also clarifies this operates on a single group. This is meaningful for an agent without an output schema, though it doesn't disclose edge cases like missing groups or pagination.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the action and object, and the second gives a practical cross-reference. No redundant or vague wording appears; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it lists, the single-group scope, the roster-based name resolution, and how to obtain the required group_id. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 100%, with the group_id parameter already described as 'Group (tag) ID from tp_list_groups.' The main description echoes this by saying 'Use tp_list_groups to get group_id,' which reinforces but does not add new semantic information. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory, so the description provides only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('athletes in one athlete group'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tp_list_athletes (which likely lists all athletes) and tp_list_groups (which lists groups). The added detail about names being resolved from the coach's roster further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 gives clear guidance on a prerequisite: 'Use tp_list_groups to get group_id.' This tells the agent how to obtain the required parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with tp_list_athletes or mention when to prefer this over listing all athletes, so it lacks a full when-not/alternatives statement.

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