List Purdue varsity sports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it states the data source (purduesports.com API), it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool requires authentication, has rate limits, how frequently data is refreshed, or what happens if the API is unavailable. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 short sentences, one focused on output and the other on source. It is efficient with no redundancy. However, it could benefit from a slightly clearer structure or explicit mention of output format. It earns a 4 for being front-loaded and concise.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It communicates the core output (list of sports and schedule IDs) and data source. However, it lacks completeness in describing the output format or potential edge cases (e.g., empty list, API errors). For a simple tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns a list of sports and schedule IDs, which goes beyond the empty schema. Since there are no params, the description's purpose is to explain what the tool does without parameter details, scoring above the baseline 4.

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 lists all Purdue varsity sports along with their current schedule IDs. The verb 'list' and resource 'Purdue varsity sports' are specific, and the source attribution adds credibility. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'athletics_schedule' or 'athletics_upcoming', but the noun 'sports' distinguishes it as a listing of sports themselves, not schedules or upcoming events.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool when you need a list of varsity sports or their schedule IDs, likely as a prerequisite to fetching schedules. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings like 'athletics_schedule', nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The mention of 'current' implies use for up-to-date data, but this is not explicit.

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