tournament_in_progress

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and does so impressively: it discloses that one logical GET is made, continuation pages are not auto-fetched, array responses are limited to 100 rows and 256 KiB, truncation is reported in text and metadata, and oversized records are refused without partial fields. This gives an agent a clear picture of pagination, limits, and failure 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 dense but mostly informative, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence conveys real behavioral details, though phrases like 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' are opaque and add little practical guidance.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational details: purpose, request behavior, pagination, size limits, and truncation reporting. It could be more complete by describing what a 'summary' contains or what the username intends, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 for the username parameter, but it only says 'Optional username is forwarded only when supplied.' This does not explain what the username filters, what format is expected, or how it affects results. The reference to 'other declared filters' is vague and there are no other declared filters in 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 opens with 'Read in-progress tournament summaries,' which gives a clear verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tournament_upcoming and tournament_completed via the 'in-progress' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 context by specifying 'in-progress' tournaments and notes that username is optional, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over tournament_upcoming, tournament_completed, tournament_mine, or other tournament siblings. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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