Get My Team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains roster row fields (player_id, name, position, slot, pro_team, injury_status, projected) and gives important semantics: slot values BENCH/IR mean not starting, rows are ordered starters/bench/IR, projected is ESPN's projection for the current week and can be null, and record/points are season-to-date for the configured season. This goes beyond a simple return statement and gives an agent enough to interpret results correctly. It does not mention side effects, but as a 'get' tool, read-only nature is implied.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then proceeds to detailed roster field explanations. It is about 120 words, which is slightly longer than minimal, but every sentence adds meaningful detail (field semantics, ordering, null handling). There is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description adds semantic richness beyond what schema field names would provide: it clarifies slot behavior, ordering, and the meaning of 'projected'. It also mentions the configured season, which ties into configuration context. For a simple getter, this is complete; it only lacks explicit details about authentication or error cases, which are likely not needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter documentation (there is nothing to document) but does add cross-tool linkage by noting player_id can be passed to get_player. This is useful context beyond the empty schema, though not technically 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 description states a specific action ('Return the user's fantasy team') and enumerates the included content (record, points, full roster). The word 'user's' distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_team' by indicating it is the current user's team. This is clear and specific.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the current user's fantasy team, including roster and stats. It also provides a practical usage tip by telling the agent to pass player_id to get_player. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that no exclusions are needed.

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