Predict the starting pitcher for a team by analyzing rotation pattern and rest days to anticipate the mound matchup.
Who is likely to start on the mound, from rotation pattern and rest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the method (rotation pattern and rest) which is useful, but it does not disclose the data source, potential staleness, or any limitations. The behavioral traits are partially transparent but leave significant gaps.
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 a single, tight sentence that conveys essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides the underlying logic, making it easy to scan. There is no filler.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks detail on how the 'team' parameter behaves, what the output looks like, and how it differentiates from sibling tools. Given the simplicity, it is minimally viable but not 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 schema provides a single optional 'team' parameter without any description, and the description does not elaborate on how 'team' is used or what values it accepts. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description could add more detail, but the parameter is simple enough that the minimal guidance is somewhat adequate.
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 indicates the tool's purpose: predicting a starting pitcher based on rotation pattern and rest. It uses a specific verb ('likely to start') and resource ('mound'), and the phrase 'from rotation pattern and rest' provides helpful context that distinguishes it from other tools. While it does not explicitly name a sibling, the purpose is clear and specific.
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 implies when to use the tool (when needing probable starting pitcher) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like 'pitcher_profile' or 'matchup'. The team parameter is optional, but the description doesn't clarify what happens when team is null, leaving a gap in usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.