2026 WC Round of 32 bracket

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the data structure (labels, slots decided or undecided, eligibleGroups, stale/fetchedAt) and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or potential empty results.

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, directly states the tool's purpose and key structural details, and avoids extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core function.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description reasonably covers the tool's output. It explains the round, bracket positions, and slot states. Minor gaps include lack of preconditions (e.g., tournament phase) and full clarification of pos vs slot semantics.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline score of 3 applies; the description adds no parameter-specific information but does not need to.

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 that the tool returns the 16 Round-of-32 matches with fixed bracket positions, including details about posA/posB labels, slotA/slotB statuses, and timestamps. It is distinct from the sibling tool get_group_standings, which likely handles group stage data.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus get_group_standings or any other alternatives. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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