Get Rosters

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail: player IDs are annotated with player names unless the player cache is warm. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as authorization needs, read-only guarantees, or the structure of the returned roster objects.

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 exactly two sentences with the primary action and scope front-loaded, followed by a concise caveat about player name annotations. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 tool with a single well-described parameter, this is nearly complete: it states what is returned (all rosters) and a key return-value nuance (player name annotations). The lack of an output schema makes more detail about roster object structure desirable, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the league_id parameter is already described as 'The Sleeper league ID.' The description's 'in a league' does not add new parameter meaning, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'all rosters in a league', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as get_league, get_users_in_league, and get_matchups. It states exactly what the tool returns and at what 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 phrase 'in a league' clearly indicates when the tool is appropriate: whenever an agent needs roster-level data for a given league. It provides clear context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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