get_roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent understands it's a safe read. The description adds the 'active roster' scoping detail and the source of team_id, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a minimal Args section with no redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics sufficiently. It leaves no critical gaps for selection or 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 provides no description for team_id, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the parameter as an ESPN numeric team ID, gives a concrete example, and directs users to get_teams for the correct value—fully covering the parameter semantics.

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 opening 'Get the active roster for an MLS team' is a clear verb+resource statement. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling get_team, but 'roster' is specific enough and the mention of get_teams provides context.

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 explicitly instructs to use the team ID returned by get_teams, establishing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It doesn't discuss when not to use it, but the context implies this is the roster-specific tool.

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