get_swiss_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or describe other behaviors like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the Swiss ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must rely on the description alone, which is incomplete for informed tool selection.

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 the single parameter 'swissId' documented as 'Swiss tournament ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Get info about') and resource ('a Swiss tournament'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other Swiss-related tools like 'create_swiss', 'join_swiss', and 'get_swiss_games' by focusing on retrieving tournament information rather than creating, joining, or fetching games. However, it doesn't specify what type of information is retrieved (e.g., settings, participants, status), leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_swiss_info' over 'get_swiss_games' or 'get_swiss_results', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid Swiss tournament ID. There's no context about use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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.