get_team_roster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, what format the roster returns (e.g., list of players with details), or if it's real-time vs. cached data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving a roster), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., player names, positions, stats) or address potential issues like invalid team IDs, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.

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 1 parameter (team_id) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description adds no specific meaning about the parameter, such as what team_id format to use (e.g., team abbreviations, numeric IDs) or where to find valid values. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate, but since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher than minimal.

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 ('current roster for a specific MLB team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_team_profile or get_team_hierarchy, which might also provide team-related information but with different scopes.

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, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like get_team_profile (which might include roster info) or get_player_profile (for individual details), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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