suggest_captain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the scoring components (ep_next, form, ppg, fixture difficulty), the 'transparent' nature, and the per-component breakdown in the return. It does not detail error handling or auth failures, but the default-to-authenticated-team implies auth requirements.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded summary, then Args and Returns sections. It is concise and every line 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?

The description fully explains the tool's purpose, methodology, inputs, and return value. However, it lacks explicit error-handling or edge-case behavior (e.g., empty squad, invalid team ID), though this is not critical for a suggestion tool.

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 Args section provides clear, meaningful descriptions for both parameters, including types and defaults. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('captain from a team's current squad'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_my_team or compare_players. The scope is well-defined.

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?

It clearly describes the context (analyzing a team's squad for captain selection) and the defaults (authenticated team, current gameweek). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear.

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