Résolution d'équipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool identifies a unique team and acts as a central hub, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already cover. With robust annotations, the description provides moderate added value.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives crucial usage guidance. Perfectly 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 (3 optional parameters, no required, with output schema), the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent when to use it and what it does, leaving no gaps in understanding for its intended role.

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?

All three parameters have schema-level descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear. Therefore the baseline score 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 identifies a single team ('Identifie une equipe unique') and labels it as a central pivot. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when it should be used (before ffbb_next_match or ffbb_last_result when the team number or category is ambiguous).

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 explicitly says 'DOIT etre utilise avant ffbb_next_match ou ffbb_last_result si l'agent ne connait pas le numero d'equipe exact ou si la categorie est ambigue'. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with specific sibling tools mentioned.

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