get_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON array of scheduled/completed games, indicating that it handles both future and past games. It also reveals the scope of the data (full schedule) but doesn't discuss potential errors or edge cases, which is acceptable for a simple read-only operation.

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 well-structured with an intro, Args section, and Returns section. It's concise and every sentence adds value. A slight redundancy exists between the first sentence and the first Returns sentence, but overall it's efficient and readable.

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 description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format. It includes important details about the season range and examples, but doesn't mention any alternative tools or potential limitations (e.g., what happens if the team has no games). Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key aspects.

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 schema has zero description coverage, but the description fully compensates. It explains 'team' is required, provides examples ('BYU', 'Duke', 'North Carolina'), and clarifies that 'season' is optional, defaults to current season, and earliest available is 1999. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a team's game schedule and results'), clearly distinguishing itself from sibling tools like get_ratings or get_team_stats. It also lists the specific data returned (dates, opponents, results, rankings, locations, records), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool (when you need a team's schedule or results) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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