Get Projections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that projections are null until ESPN publishes them, that suggested_lineup fills league starting slots with eligibility rules, that IR/OUT/suspended players are never started, and that changes lists only the moves needed while continuing starters appear only in suggested_lineup. It also gives presentation guidance to show changes rather than the whole table.

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 core purpose, then organized into usage guidance, return-field semantics, and presentation advice. Every sentence adds actionable information, and none merely restates the tool name or title.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, how the suggested lineup is computed, how changes should be presented, and how the week parameter behaves. Although an output schema exists, the description still explains the semantics of players, suggested_lineup, and changes in enough detail for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter, week, with 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It does: it explains that week defaults to current_week, defines current_week as the league's current NFL week, and instructs callers to pass current_week + 1 once games have kicked off to plan ahead.

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 verb and resource: it returns ESPN projections for the user's roster for one NFL week along with a suggested optimal lineup. It also anchors concrete use cases like 'set my lineup' and 'start X or Y?', making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as get_my_team or compare_players.

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?

It gives explicit scenarios for when to use the tool ('set my lineup', 'start X or Y?', 'who's on bye?') and explains the week default plus how to plan ahead with week = current_week + 1. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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