kenpom_project

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral disclosure. It lacks information on side effects, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid team names, which is critical for a projection tool.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the main outputs and method. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from bullet points for clarity.

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 output schema, the description only vaguely mentions outputs without detailing format or structure. Missing details on return values, error conditions, and behavior for missing data make it incomplete for an agent to understand the full response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little extra meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'configurable home court advantage' adds context for home_adv, but other parameters like 'k' and 'archive_date' are not elaborated.

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 it projects game score, margin, total, and win probability using the OE/DE crossover method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kenpom_matchup by mentioning configurable home court advantage, but could be more explicit about its unique purpose.

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 like kenpom_predictions or kenpom_archive. The description does not mention prerequisites, suitable contexts, or when not to use it.

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