squiggle: Get ladder

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) by noting that the tool returns projected wins/mean rank per prediction model. This aligns with the read-only and idempotent nature and explains the speculative data (consistent with openWorldHint). No contradictions or additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are provided, which is acceptable given the simple read operation.

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, extremely concise, and front-loads the core action. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and basic behavior.

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 (read-only, 3 params with full schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It specifies what is returned (projected ladder with wins/mean rank per model). However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return structure (e.g., list of ladder entries) or ordering. Overall, it covers the essentials.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'by prediction model,' which ties to the source parameter, but does not add new details beyond what the schema already provides (year: 'Season year', round: 'Round number', source: 'Model source id (use squiggle_get_sources)'). The description does not enhance parameter understanding significantly.

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 what the tool does: 'Get the projected AFL ladder for a given year and round, by prediction model.' It specifies the sport (AFL), the key parameters (year, round, model/source), and the output (projected wins/mean rank). This distinguishes it from siblings like squiggle_get_standings (likely actual standings) and squiggle_get_tips (tips).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for projected ladders, but among siblings (e.g., squiggle_get_standings, squiggle_get_games, squiggle_get_tips), no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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