get-team-roster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get information') but doesn't mention any constraints like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness (how 'current' is current), or what format the roster information will be returned in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally provide more context about what information is returned (players, positions, stats) and any behavioral constraints. The description meets basic requirements but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents the parameters, though the description could have added context about why both parameters are required or how they interact.

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 information') and resource ('an NHL team's current roster'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get-team' or 'get-team-stats' by specifying roster information, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-roster-by-season' which appears to be a direct sibling with similar functionality.

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 siblings like 'get-roster-by-season' that seem closely related, there's no indication of differences in scope, data freshness, or filtering capabilities. The description assumes this is the only way to get roster information without acknowledging potential alternatives.

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