Get Knockout Bracket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true. The description adds context about the data shown (round path, venues, dates) but does not elaborate on other behaviors like data recency or mock data. No contradictions.

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 sentences with no filler. First sentence states core purpose; second adds details and optional filtering. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 visualization tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does and what it shows. Lacks only a note on return format, but that is acceptable.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a well-documented round parameter. The description's mention of 'Optionally filter by a specific round' adds marginal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Visualize' and clearly identifies the resource as 'FIFA World Cup 2026 knockout bracket'. It details the content shown (full path, group positions, venues, dates) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_matches or get_groups.

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 implies usage for viewing the bracket structure but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned despite 17 sibling tools.

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