get_tv_game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time data, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 that front-loads the key information ('Get current TV game in PGN format'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 optional parameter with full schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what 'PGN format' means, how current the data is, or any behavioral details, which could hinder an AI agent's ability to use it correctly without additional inference.

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 a clear enum for the 'channel' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'PGN format' entails or default behavior if no channel is specified). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('current TV game in PGN format'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tv_channels' or 'export_game', which might retrieve similar data in different formats or contexts, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. With siblings like 'get_tv_channels' (which might list available channels) and 'export_game' (which could export specific games), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's usage.

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