get-roster-by-season

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving data but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned roster. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the core functionality.

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 does not address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or return format, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for a tool with no structured behavioral data.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (teamAbbrev and season), including examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or edge cases, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'an NHL team's roster for a specific season', making the purpose explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-team-roster', which appears to serve a similar function without the season parameter, leaving room for confusion about when to use one over the other.

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, such as the sibling 'get-team-roster'. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and parameters without explicit direction.

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