get_game_summary

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 'summary information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., scores, teams, date), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling for invalid game IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'summary information' entails, how to handle errors, or provide any behavioral context. For a tool with no structured support, the description should do more to guide the agent, such as hinting at the return format or common use cases.

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% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details on its format or meaning. The description adds minimal value by implying it's for a 'specific MLB game,' but doesn't clarify the expected format (e.g., numeric ID, string code) or where to obtain it. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 summary information') and the resource ('for a specific MLB game'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'get_game_boxscore' or 'get_game_play_by_play' by specifying 'summary' rather than detailed metrics or play-by-play data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_daily_schedule' or 'get_team_profile', which might also provide game-related info, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid game ID, or compare it to siblings like 'get_game_boxscore' for detailed stats or 'get_daily_schedule' for broader game listings. Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent must infer based on tool names alone.

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