get-current-schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns upcoming games, past games, or both; what time frame 'current' refers to; or if there are rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'current' means (e.g., today's games, this week's games), what data is returned, or how it differs from other schedule tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves too many gaps for reliable agent use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify what 'current' means in relation to the parameters), so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or adding value.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('current NHL schedule for a specific team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get-schedule', 'get-date-schedule', or 'get-month-schedule', which all retrieve schedule data with different scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for schedules (e.g., 'get-date-schedule', 'get-month-schedule', 'get-season-schedule'), there's no indication that this tool is specifically for 'current' schedule or how it differs from the generic 'get-schedule'.

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