scout_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output format (markdown) and the scope of the report, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it triggers a data fetch or sync, whether it can be slow or rate-limited, or what happens if the team is not in the system. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves 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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates its key content areas, ending with the return format. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema information or 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 has an output schema, so the return structure is presumably documented there, and the description's mention of markdown adds the format. However, the description does not explain the 'lookback' parameter's unit or semantics, nor does it clarify the expected format of 'team'. Given the tool's complexity (aggregating multiple scouting dimensions) and the 0% schema description coverage, the description is not fully complete for an agent to call it correctly without additional inference.

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 schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description does not explain what 'team' should be (e.g., team name, abbreviation, ID) or what 'lookback' means (e.g., number of games, days, or seasons). The default of 8 is present in the schema but its unit and effect are unexplained. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's bare names.

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 a specific verb ('Full pre-game scouting report'), a clear resource ('an opponent'), and enumerates the concrete content areas (predicted lineup, probable pitchers with stamina curves, running game, count tendencies). It also notes the return format (markdown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like predict_lineup, probable_pitcher, running_game, and count_tendencies, which each cover only a subset of what scout_report aggregates.

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 the tool is the comprehensive pre-game scouting option, and the sibling list makes it clear that more granular tools exist for individual aspects (predict_lineup, probable_pitcher, running_game, count_tendencies). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over those alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether the team must be synced first). The context is clear but the guidance is not explicit.

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