sync_recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior traits. It mentions it fetches 'only the missing box scores' and 'up to a limit,' implying it is non-aggressive and incremental, but it doesn't specify details like whether it respects rate limits, how it determines 'missing', or what happens if limit is reached. It also doesn't describe side effects or return behavior, leaving 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately providing usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is efficient and structured well.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it would be helpful to mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of box scores) or how 'missing' is determined. Since the tool is relatively simple, the description is adequate but could be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'limit'. The description mentions 'up to a limit' which gives some context for the parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain the default behavior (default 20) or what happens with different values (e.g., 0 or negative). It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'Limit' title.

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 states the tool fetches 'only the missing box scores' up to a limit, with a specific verb and resource. While it implies catching up after rate limits, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'sync_league', which could also sync data, though the 'missing box scores' specificity helps distinguish it.

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 says to use it 'to work through a backlog gently after a rate-limit block,' providing clear context for when to use it (after rate limits, for missing data). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'sync_league', but the context is enough to guide selection.

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