ctf_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the CTFd mode is auto-detected (so no mode parameter is needed), but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the call is read-only, or failure behavior when unauthenticated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the mode behavior both land immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and with zero parameters the call surface is trivial. The only shortfall is the absence of any note about authentication or error conditions, which matters slightly given no annotations.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description adds real value by explaining that mode is auto-detected rather than supplied, which preempts an agent trying to pass a mode argument that does not exist.

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 names a specific resource (your own team in team mode or user in user mode) and enumerates the returned fields (name, score, place). 'Your own' implicitly separates it from ctf_scoreboard, which covers the whole field, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of team mode vs user mode and auto-detection tells the agent it need not pass a mode argument. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing or pointer to alternatives such as ctf_scoreboard for other players' standings.

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