stats_get_rounds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses role-based visibility ('Blue team sees only their stats, white team sees all'), but does not state whether the operation is read-only or mention other potential limitations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action and included data, the second explains access scoping. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool, the description adequately specifies the data content and role-based access. It could mention the response format or ordering, but the core use is clear without an output schema.

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, so schema coverage is trivially complete and no parameter documentation is required. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the specific verb ('Get') and resource ('round statistics'), and enumerates the included data points (start/end times, duration, up/down service counts). It also differentiates from siblings by describing the blue/white team visibility scoping.

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 through the purpose statement, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools. The role-based scoping provides some context, but does not direct the agent among comparable stats/overview sibling tools.

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