analyze_mini_league

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that team_id is optional and detected from the account, implying authentication context, and it scopes the analysis to ~10 managers above/below. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it has rate limits, or any side effects. It gives some context but not comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 plus an Args list, with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanations are compact. Every sentence earns its place. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given only 2 parameters (1 required) and an output schema that defines the return structure, the description covers the essential information. It clarifies the scope (classic league, ~10 managers) and parameter behavior. A minor gap is the lack of explicit requirement to be logged in, though 'detected from your account' implies authentication. Overall, it is complete enough for a tool of this complexity.

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. It does so effectively by adding an 'Args' section that explains league_id ('The mini-league ID') and team_id ('Optional; detected from your account if omitted'). This provides clear meaning beyond the schema's type/title, fully covering both parameters.

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's function: analyzing a mini-league by providing the user's rank, edge, and threats compared to nearby managers. The verb 'Spy' is informal but conveys a competitive-analysis purpose, and the resource ('classic mini-league') is specific. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_league_standings (presumably a simple table) and get_my_team (own team).

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 explains what the tool does (analyze rank/edge/threats vs. nearby managers) but does not explicitly state when to use it in favor of alternatives. It implies a deep competitive analysis, but there is no mention of 'if you just need standings, use get_league_standings' or any exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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