optimize_lineup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the optimization objectives (median, floor, upside), but does not indicate whether the tool mutates the lineup, requires authenticated league context, or returns a proposed lineup. This lack of side-effect or permission disclosure is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it omits details that could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It does not state required parameters, eligibility conditions, or any behavior beyond the optimization objectives. The presence of an output schema helps, but the tool still lacks essential context for correct invocation.

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 provides no explanation of the three parameters (week, league_id, roster_id). The required parameter 'week' is not even mentioned, leaving the agent to guess its role. The description adds no value beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 tool optimizes a weekly lineup for median, floor, and upside objectives. It uses a specific verb 'optimize' and resource 'eligible weekly lineup', distinguishing it from draft, waiver, and trade tools among siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for optimizing a weekly lineup. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites like needing a valid league_id or roster_id, or the eligibility criteria for the lineup.

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