get_rpi

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the formula, components returned, and noise sensitivity, without contradicting annotations.

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 concise: two main sentences about purpose and formula, a caveat, and a clear args section. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 complexity of the tool (formula, multiple components, default handling) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral and parameter details, including a usage caveat.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: event_id with example, flight_id as derived from another tool, and tie_weight with its meaning and default. This compensates completely for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 computes RPI ranking for every team in a flight and provides the formula. It differentiates from the sibling 'get_team_rpi' implicitly by focusing on all teams, but does not explicitly distinguish.

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 explains that RPI is computed from completed games and notes that early season results are noisy, offering some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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