nhl_get_team_roster

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 only states what data is returned but does not disclose behavioral aspects such as data freshness, pagination behavior, error handling, rate limits, or required permissions. For a read-only tool, more transparency would help the agent understand potential issues.

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 two sentences long, directly states the purpose and output, and contains no unnecessary words or information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It clarifies the return content but does not describe the structure of the roster (e.g., whether it returns a list of player objects) or any default behavior when season is omitted. A bit more detail would improve completeness.

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%, with both parameters having descriptive comments in the schema. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only summarizes the return type. Thus, the description adds marginal value, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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's function: 'Get the roster for an NHL team' and specifies the expected output ('forwards, defensemen, and goalies with jersey numbers and positions'). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('roster'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mlb_get_team_roster or espn_get_team_roster by explicitly mentioning NHL and the types of players returned.

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 (e.g., nhl_get_team_schedule, espn_get_team_roster). It does not specify any prerequisites, limitations, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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