get_sports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that no API call is made and the returned list is 'limited', which meaningfully informs the agent about the tool's behavior. It could mention return format, but for a simple list this is adequate.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core action, scope, and key behavioral fact. No filler or redundant text exists, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 zero-parameter static list tool, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its non-API nature. While no output schema is provided, the expected result is straightforward, and the sibling list offers enough situation context. Slightly more detail about the actual sports content could raise it to a 5.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter definitions to explain. The schema fully covers the interface, and the description adds no ambiguity. Per the baseline for zero parameter tools, this scores at the baseline of 4.

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 'Get limited list of supported sports' clearly specifies the action (get), the resource (supported sports), and the scope (limited list). The parenthetical '(no API call)' further distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely fetch live data.

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 intent through '(no API call)', suggesting it is a cheap or instant local lookup. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings or provide exclusionary guidance, so it stops at implied guidance.

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