fpl_lineup_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: it only chooses/plans rather than executes, and it reports projected bench points for Bench Boost while clarifying that normally only the XI scores. This meaningfully helps an agent understand the tool's output semantics, though it does not mention side effects or data-fetching 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the main action front-loaded and the Bench Boost nuance placed second. Every clause adds useful information.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description leaves most parameter behaviors unexplained. It covers the expected outputs well but omits how optional inputs like fetch_official, signals, and auto_official_signals affect the result, making it insufficient for predictable 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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely implies gameweek and current_squad. It does not explain signals, bootstrap_path, fetch_official, auto_official_signals, or the relationship between buyable_players and the official universe. An agent would struggle to select correct values for most optional parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('Choose') and resource ('legal current-week formation, starting XI, bench order, captain and vice-captain') from a 15-player squad, and even adds the return nuance about Bench Boost points. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools about moves, strategy, search, scoring, or backtesting.

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 this is the tool for current-week lineup planning from a supplied squad, but it never names sibling alternatives or gives conditions for when to use this tool instead of fpl_recommend_moves or fpl_score_moves. There is no exclusion or when-not guidance.

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