get_game_pitch_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if the game_id is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of retrieving game-specific pitch metrics, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description must compensate more. It fails to provide details on return values, data structure, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to handle the tool robustly in a broader context.

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 input schema has one parameter ('game_id') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about the parameter. The description adds no semantic information beyond implying it's for a specific MLB game, without explaining the format or constraints of 'game_id'. This partially compensates but does not fully address the coverage gap, aligning with the baseline for minimal param info.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('pitch-level metrics and Statcast data for a specific MLB game'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_game_boxscore' or 'get_game_play_by_play', which might also provide game-specific data but for different aspects, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides minimal guidance by specifying 'for a specific MLB game', implying usage when pitch-level metrics are needed for a particular game. However, it offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_seasonal_pitch_metrics' for aggregated data or 'get_game_summary' for broader game info), and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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