caselist_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return contents ('disclosed or not, round count, recent open-source doc paths... and cite titles') and input formats, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It adds useful output details but lacks a full behavioral profile.

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 with the primary purpose front-loaded. It packs essential information (input format, output highlights, follow-up instruction) without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating input and output), but it is efficient and readable.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values beyond what it does. It covers the core purpose, input format, and workflow context, but the unexplained 'caselist' parameter is a notable gap. Overall, it provides sufficient information for an agent to decide when and how to call the tool correctly, but not exhaustive.

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 description thoroughly explains the 'entries' parameter (CSV export format or one-line-per-team example), which is critical since schema coverage is 0%. However, the optional 'caselist' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose and format unspecified. This partial compensation gives it a middle score.

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 states a specific action ('scout a whole tournament field') and resource ('every entry to its caselist page') in one call. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like caselist_search (single team lookup) and caselist_download (specific doc retrieval) by emphasizing batch matching of tournament entries.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to process a full tournament field. It also mentions a follow-up workflow ('Then follow pf-scout "Prep out a tournament"') and indicates that the output feeds into caselist_download. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like caselist_team, leaving some room for inference.

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