keepers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the two keeper lists often disagree and that reporting either as "the keepers" would be wrong, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe return format, pagination, permissions, or side effects (though it's likely read-only).

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 front-loaded with the key distinction and then lists arguments. It is appropriately sized without redundancy. The opening sentence is slightly vague ("Who was kept...") but the following sentences clarify quickly.

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 that an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values. It covers the core conceptual distinction and both parameters. It lacks explicit usage guidance versus siblings, but for a read-only keeper-info tool with an output schema, this is fairly complete.

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 explain both parameters: `history` ("Also show previous seasons. Default True") and `league_id_` ("Override the configured league"). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though it could specify format or valid values for `league_id_`.

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 subject: keeper records and designation rules. It distinguishes two data sources (`is_keeper` from draft vs `roster.keepers` for the next draft), which is a specific and helpful distinction. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like `set_keepers` or `draft_picks`, so sibling differentiation is implied but not stated.

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 when to use this tool (to inspect keeper status and rules) by contrasting the two data sources, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like `draft_picks` or `roster`. It also doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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