scoreboard_get_line_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return data (round labels, cumulative scores, colors) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, or whether any side effects or authentication are involved. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich; it could mention it is safe and does not modify data.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get team line chart data') and provides essential return details. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description explains what it returns. It lacks an explicit mention of how to use it versus the sibling bar chart tool, but given the low complexity, the description is largely complete. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the return description.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description has nothing to add about params. Given the baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools, this is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.

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 tool 'Get team line chart data showing score progression over rounds' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling scoreboard_get_bar_data by explicitly mentioning 'line chart' and describing the return data (round labels, cumulative scores, colors).

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 implies use when line chart data is needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since a sibling exists for bar data, a brief note ('For bar data, use scoreboard_get_bar_data') would have clarified when to choose this tool. The lack of params reduces the need for prerequisites, but the guidance is only implicit.

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