get_match_recap

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, data freshness, permissions, or rate limits. The word 'recap' implies a finished match, but this is not explicitly stated as a constraint.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded core information. No redundant words; every sentence adds value, including usage examples and cross-reference to list_fixtures.

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 simple input (one param) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what to expect (performers, highlights, milestones). However, it does not specify the return format (text vs structured data), which might be needed for optimal agent 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 single parameter 'matchId' is not described in the schema (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning by explaining its purpose (identifying a match) and how to discover valid IDs via list_fixtures. An example ('match 69635') is given, though format specifics are lacking.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides key performers and highlights for a single finished IPL 2026 match, with specific examples like 'top batter, top bowler, MOTM, milestones'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for finished matches and includes concrete use-case queries.

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?

Explicitly provides use-case examples ('Who won the MI vs RCB match?') and guidance on how to obtain the required parameter ('Use list_fixtures to discover matchIds'). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like get_match_state.

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