get_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states it returns statistical data (EPA ratings, win rate, location) but does not disclose if any side effects exist (likely none), authentication needs, or data freshness. Acceptable for a read-only get operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is meaningful; no fluff.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention that the output is statistical, which is implied. It lacks details like data freshness, but overall complete for this simple tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'team', with clear type and constraints. The description adds context about the purpose of the returned data but doesn't add value beyond the schema for the parameter itself.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Get statistical data for a specific FRC team', listing what is included (EPA ratings, win rate, location). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_team_event or get_team_year, which focus on different scopes.

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 usage for fetching team stats but does not provide guidance on when to use alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that get_team_year might be more appropriate for yearly data, or get_teams for listing all teams.

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