get_broadcast_round

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format, which are critical for a tool that likely fetches data. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's front-loaded but under-specified, as it could benefit from more detail without sacrificing brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns data. It doesn't explain what 'get' yields (e.g., round details, PGN data), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('broadcastId' and 'roundId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the need for these IDs, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get one round of a broadcast' clearly states the action (get) and resource (round of a broadcast), but it's somewhat vague about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, fetch data) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_broadcast' or 'push_broadcast_round_pgn'. It avoids tautology by specifying 'round' beyond the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after retrieving a broadcast), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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