get_mlb_game_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid game_id), rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 core purpose in the first sentence and additional details in a structured Args/Returns format. There's no wasted text, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant given the input/output schemas, but they add clarity in a concise manner.

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) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., error cases, data scope) to fully guide the agent, making it incomplete for optimal use.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'game_id (int): The game ID,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose and type. However, it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., valid ranges, source) or examples, leaving gaps despite the single parameter.

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 lineup information for a specific game by game_id,' specifying the verb ('Get'), resource ('lineup information'), and key identifier ('game_id'). It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., get_mlb_boxscore, get_mlb_linescore) by focusing on lineups, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_mlb_roster or get_mlb_players, which are related but not identical.

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., needing a valid game_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_mlb_roster (team rosters) or get_mlb_players (player lists), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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