get_manager_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' matches that safety contract. It adds the sections-limiting behavior but provides no additional operational context such as caching behavior or auth dependencies.

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 sentences: a clear statement of what the tool reads, followed by a direct instruction on limiting output. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler 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 sections parameter is well explained, but mode and week are ambiguous, and there is no output schema to compensate. An agent would have to guess the semantics of cache_only/refresh and week, so the definition is not self-sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning; it does for sections by enumerating valid values like settings, rosters, and chat. However, mode (normal/cache_only/refresh) and week are left unexplained, so coverage is only partial.

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 opens with 'Read league facts, owned roster, projections, and chat for a private review', giving a specific action and resource set. It stops short of 5 because the broad scope overlaps with sibling getters like get_league_data and get_league_chat, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from run_manager_review.

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 only guidance is 'Pass sections to limit output', which is an invocation tip rather than a selection rule. It never states when to prefer this tool over run_manager_review, get_league_data, or get_league_chat, nor any exclusions.

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