get_roster

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that injury designations are exactly as reported by ESPN and that there is no timestamp or news text, explicitly warning the agent not to describe recency. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 short and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating what the tool returns. The second sentence adds an important caveat without verbosity. The internal reference '(B-02)' is slightly cryptic but does not materially hurt clarity.

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 an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description does not need to explain return shapes or safety. It competently covers roster contents and the injury-designation limitation. The main gaps are the undocumented week/league parameters and the lack of any comparison to get_matchup, leaving the selection context incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'week' or 'league' parameters at all. Their names are mildly suggestive, but the description does not clarify whether they control the roster week, which league, or what null defaults mean. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate and did not.

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 identifies the resource ('roster') and its contents ('lineup slots, NFL opponents, projections and injury designations'), which is specific and informative. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but 'Your roster' strongly implies retrieval. It distinguishes from get_matchup by subject matter, though it never names the sibling.

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 phrase 'Your roster' gives an implied usage context: use this when the user's lineup, projections, or injury statuses are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer get_matchup instead, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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