game_boxscore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does so by specifying the output content: final score and top 5 scorers per side. It also reveals the dependency on game_id from scoreboard, which is useful behavioral context, though it does not mention error cases or edge behavior.

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 extremely concise: one sentence defines the resource and output, and one sentence gives the prerequisite. Every word adds value and the key information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose and the source of the required parameter. It could be slightly richer about how the result is scoped (e.g., current season only) but that is not essential given the surrounding 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?

The schema provides only a game_id string with no description, so the description's instruction to get game_id from scoreboard adds real semantic value. It tells the agent where to find a valid value, which is sufficient for a single simple parameter, though it does not define the identifier format.

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 identifies the tool as supplying a box score summary for a specific game, including final score and top 5 scorers per side. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as scoreboard and player_career_stats, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns'.

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?

'Get game_id from scoreboard' gives a clear prerequisite and tells the agent which sibling tool produces the needed input. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is obvious: use it after selecting a game from the scoreboard.

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