get_competition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Get full details', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose potential behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or data size.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose, though it could be slightly expanded to include parameter context.

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 simplicity (one param, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is mostly adequate but lacks parameter explanation, which is critical 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?

The input schema has one required parameter (competition_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what the parameter represents or how to obtain it, leaving a significant gap for the agent.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'full details of a single Codabench competition', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_competitions or list_competition_phases.

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 implies use when you need full details of a specific competition, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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