mlb_get_team_roster

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints that the tool is read-only (by context of 'get'), but does not discuss rate limits, error behavior, data freshness, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to provide adequate 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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise, but lacks any structural elements like bullet points or separation of concerns. Could be slightly more informative without adding length.

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?

The description lists key output fields (player names, positions, jersey numbers, status), which is helpful given the lack of an output schema. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or the effect of the rosterType parameter on the output. The description is adequate for a simple tool but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about team_id, rosterType, or season beyond what is in the schema. The 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a team's roster'), and the included data ('player names, positions, jersey numbers, and status'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like nhl_get_team_roster by the MLB-specific context in the tool name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., espn_get_team_roster or nhl_get_team_roster). There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or when not to use the tool.

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