get_team_roster

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Team roster' with no details on what the roster includes (e.g., all players, positions, stats) or any side effects. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the description adds minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that are front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what the roster contains, but the output schema likely provides that detail. A score of 3 reflects the bare minimum.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'team' accepts name or ID, which is helpful. However, it provides no information about the 'season' parameter beyond its schema definition. This partial coverage earns a middle score.

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 'Team roster' and that it accepts team name or ID, establishing the tool's purpose of retrieving a team's roster. It is distinct from sibling tools like team_overview or get_team_advanced_stats, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., team_overview for summary or resolve_team_id for ID lookup). The description only says it accepts team name or ID, omitting context such as prerequisites or limitations.

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