chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the auth requirement ('Needs a token'), a specific failure mode (invalid `order_by` returns HTTP 500 rather than a clean error), and that sorting is done client-side. It also flags the prompt-injection surface of message content, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait annotations never cover.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then two clearly labeled blocks (GOTCHA, SECURITY), then args. Every section earns its place, though the SECURITY block is somewhat verbose relative to the rest and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Complete for a 3-param read tool: auth, failure modes, parameter defaults, and content-safety guidance are all present, and an output schema exists so return values need no prose. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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, and it does — all three params are explained: `league_id_` defaults to SLEEPER_LEAGUE_ID, `limit` is count of recent messages defaulting to 25, and `search` is a case-insensitive substring filter. This adds real meaning the bare schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Read the league chat' — which is unambiguous against the sibling list, none of which touches chat. It stops short of naming scope boundaries (e.g. whether it covers DMs vs league-wide), so it lands at a clear-but-not-exhaustive 4.

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?

Gives concrete operating context: a token is required, defaults are documented (SLEEPER_LEAGUE_ID, limit 25), and the `order_by` gotcha tells the agent how to use the args safely. It doesn't say when to prefer this over another data source, but no sibling competes for this resource.

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