squiggle_get_teams

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

The description explicitly states a read-only operation (list) with no destructive hints. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. Since the tool has no parameters and no side effects, the description is sufficiently transparent about behavior.

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?

Single sentence that delivers all necessary information without extraneous words. Front-loaded with the primary purpose ('List all AFL teams'), immediately followed by scope and output details. 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what a user needs: it lists all AFL teams with specified fields. No behavioral complexities remain unexplained. For a simple listing tool, it is complete.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not add parameter information (none needed), but baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4 per rubric. No further detail is required.

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 starts with 'List all AFL teams' clearly identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like squiggle_get_games or squiggle_get_ladder by focusing exclusively on teams, and further specifies scope (current and historic) and returned fields (id, abbreviation, debut/retirement years, logo path). No ambiguity.

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 implicitly indicates usage when a list of AFL teams is needed, with no parameters to confuse. There are no sibling tools that list teams within the squiggle group, so no explicit alternatives are necessary. The context is clear, though no explicit 'when-not' guidance is given.

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