roster

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 usefully discloses that points are computed from raw components against league.scoring_settings rather than Sleeper's generic pts_ppr, which is real behavioral context. But it says nothing about auth requirements, read-only nature, or defaults resolution beyond the Args section.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a scoped explanation and a compact Args block. The middle scoring-explanation sentence is slightly verbose but earns its place by justifying why league-specific scoring matters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the front-loaded purpose, default-resolution notes, and scoring behavior, the definition gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly; only the absence of any safety/auth context holds it back.

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: it documents all three parameters, including the defaulting behavior for league_id_ (SLEEPER_LEAGUE_ID), roster_id_ (SLEEPER_ROSTER_ID), and week (0 = current week). This adds meaning well beyond the empty schema, though it omits valid ranges or formats.

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 clear resource ('your roster') and adds a specific qualifier ('weekly projections, scored under THIS league's rules'), which is far more informative than the bare tool name 'roster'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from generic projection sources by emphasizing league-specific scoring, though it never names a sibling tool it competes with.

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?

It explains the scenario where this tool matters (half-PPR, first-down-scoring, TE-premium leagues where it diverges from Sleeper's pts_ppr), which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as matchup, standings, or player_outlook, leaving routing to inference.

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