get_rotation_breakdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: a 7-day local disk cache, the fact that force_refresh bypasses that cache and triggers a live fetch, and the two output serializations. It omits error behavior, authentication requirements, and whether a missing team_id aggregates across both teams.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure is scannable. The parenthetical enumeration of six setter zone assignments is the weakest part, since it is long and its value is marginal to the decision of whether to call the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns section is redundant but harmless, and the description covers inputs, caching, and output shape. The remaining gap is behavior when team_id is omitted versus supplied, which matters for interpreting the breakdown.

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 carry the load, and it documents all four parameters: match_id with a route to obtaining it, team_id as an optional filter, output_format's two valid values with their shapes, and force_refresh's cache semantics. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: fetching tactical performance metrics broken down by volleyball rotation P1 through P6. The specific metrics listed (sideout efficiency, point scoring percentage while serving, FBSO conversion, setter distribution) make it easy to tell apart from get_match_player_stats and get_game_actions.

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 gives concrete routing guidance by telling the agent that match_id is obtainable via list_volleyball_matches, and it explains the team_id filter. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over get_match_player_stats or get_game_actions, and it states no exclusions or prerequisites beyond that ID hint.

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