espn_get_team_roster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it returns a 'full roster' and 'basic stats', but does not disclose how often data is updated, whether results are paginated, or any authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and typical output. It is concise and to the point, though a minor improvement could be structuring the output list for clarity. Nearly every word earns its place.

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 has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves gaps. It does not explain what 'basic stats' includes, how to handle errors (e.g., invalid team ID), or the format of the returned data. For a complete understanding, the agent would need additional information.

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 100%—each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'Sport code', 'League code', 'ESPN team ID'). The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the purpose. According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when coverage is high and description adds no extra value.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full roster for a specific team', and explicitly lists the included data (player names, positions, jersey numbers, basic stats). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like espn_get_athlete or espn_get_team_details.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it, or comparisons to siblings like espn_get_athlete for individual player details or espn_get_team_details for team metadata. The description does not help an agent choose between tools.

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