get_game_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return granularity, the two output formats, and the 7-day local disk cache with force_refresh to bypass it. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for invalid match_id, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, then a compact Args block. It runs long, but given that the input schema carries zero parameter descriptions, nearly every line earns its place; the only mild redundancy is restating return fields in both the opening and the Returns section.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema-level parameter docs, the description covers filters, paging, caching, and output format thoroughly, and the output schema handles return typing. Gaps remain around authentication/preconditions and failure modes, which matter for a tool that reaches out to Hudl/Balltime.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does: every one of the 10 parameters is documented with accepted value sets and examples (action_type enums, team 'a'/'b' or name, quality values, jersey vs name for player, match_id accepting Balltime/Hudl IDs or titles). It also explains the DataVolley skill and evaluation codes the filters align with.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve detailed tagged volleyball actions and touch events from a match/video breakdown') and enumerates the returned fields (set, score, timestamp, jersey, action type, quality, zones). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_match_player_stats or get_rotation_breakdown, which aggregate rather than return event timelines.

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 makes the use case implied (event-by-event timeline with optional filtering) but never says when to choose this over get_match_player_stats or get_rotation_breakdown, nor when not to use it. An agent has to infer the routing from the return content rather than being told explicitly.

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