get_mlb_draft

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 states the tool 'Get[s] draft information' and returns a 'dict,' implying a read-only operation with dictionary output, but it doesn't disclose critical traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or what specific draft information is included (e.g., picks, teams, players). 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first ('Get draft information for a specific year.') followed by brief Arg and Return sections. Every sentence adds value, though the structure is basic and could be more streamlined (e.g., integrating Args/Returns into a single sentence). It avoids redundancy and waste, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: dict'), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., no annotations, no details on output structure beyond 'dict') and usage guidelines. This makes it adequate for a simple tool but not fully informative.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'year_id' of type 'integer' but no further details. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'year_id (int): Draft year,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose as the draft year. However, it doesn't compensate fully for the schema gap—e.g., no info on valid year ranges or format—so it meets the baseline for low schema coverage without fully addressing the deficiency.

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's purpose as 'Get draft information for a specific year,' which includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('draft information') with a scope ('for a specific year'). It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., get_mlb_awards, get_mlb_schedule) by focusing on draft data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from non-draft tools like get_mlb_players or get_mlb_teams, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., valid year ranges), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_mlb_players or get_mlb_teams that might overlap in data retrieval. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose, lacking explicit context.

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