get_my_team

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses that it uses authenticated credentials and returns detailed team info. It does not mention any destructive actions, which is appropriate for a read operation. Could improve by noting potential error conditions (e.g., invalid gameweek).

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 succinct with clear sections: summary line, Args, Returns, Note. No extraneous information. Each sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, parameter, return contents (player details, captain, value), and authentication context. It could mention error handling or rate limits, but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, 'gameweek', with schema showing integer or null. Description adds meaning: 'Gameweek number (defaults to current gameweek)', which clarifies the default behavior beyond the schema's null default. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the parameter is well-explained.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'your own FPL team' for a specific gameweek. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_team' by specifying that this uses authenticated team ID, while 'get_team' requires a manual team_id.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for authenticated user's team) and when to use the alternative (get_team for another team's details). Also mentions default behavior (current gameweek) and authentication dependency.

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