espn: Get team roster

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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the data returned (player names, positions, jersey numbers, basic stats), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions exist.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and includes essential details about the return content, earning 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 that there is no output schema and the schema covers parameters fully, the description adequately informs about the tool's return data. However, it could mention that team_id must be obtained from another tool (espn_get_teams) for completeness, but it is not strictly required.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for sport, league, and team_id. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints for these parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 tool retrieves 'the full roster for a specific team' and enumerates included data (player names, positions, jersey numbers, basic stats). It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'team roster', distinguishing it from sibling tools like espn_get_teams (list teams) or espn_get_team_details (team info).

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a team_id from espn_get_teams) or when not to use it. Among many sibling tools, no context is given for selection.

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