Team list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the semantics of "selected" and the visibility report (teammate/opponent/unknown), which are genuine behavioral additions an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the returned field list and followed by the "selected" semantics. Slightly awkward opening phrasing ("The robots on the team list") but no filler sentences; every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so field by field, including the visibility report. Minor gaps remain (ordering, count, or how unknown detection works), but the agent has enough to interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs and instead spends its words on outputs, which is the right use of space for a no-arg tool.

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 the resource and enumerates exactly what is returned: each player's name, team, robot address, connection state, battery, and field position. It is clearly a read/enumeration tool, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling robot_status (single-robot view), leaving the boundary to inference.

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 meaning of "selected" and routes the agent to select_player for switching, which is useful orientation. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to robot_status or other state-reading siblings, so the choice among them remains implied.

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