running_game

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is returned, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, response format, error conditions, or other behaviors. For a tool that likely performs a data fetch, this is a significant gap.

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 (one short phrase) and uses no unnecessary words. However, it lacks any structural elements like lists or headers, and it is so underspecified that it reads more like an incomplete fragment than a well-crafted description. It earns a middle score for efficiency but loses points for lack of substance.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should fully explain what the tool does and what it returns. While it mentions the data categories (steal rate, basestealers, catcher throwing), it does not clarify the output format, whether a team is required, or any edge cases. For a straightforward tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'team' parameter. The phrase 'A team's' implicitly indicates the parameter refers to a team, but it does not specify acceptable formats (e.g., team ID, abbreviation) or whether a null value means 'all teams'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property name.

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 states the tool provides a team's steal rate, main basestealers, and catcher throwing data. This clearly identifies the subject matter and distinguishes it from sibling tools like team_batting or team_pitching. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve', making it a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With no reference to siblings or use cases, the agent has no help deciding between this and similar tools like small_ball or count_tendencies.

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