get_teams

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that it returns statistical data with filtering, but does not mention pagination behavior beyond limit/offset parameters, or any rate limits or performance considerations. Given no annotations, a score of 3 is reasonable for partial disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose and filtering options. Could be split into two sentences for readability, but efficient overall.

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?

No output schema, so return format is unspecified. The 8 parameters are well-documented in schema. However, the description does not explain what 'statistical data' means (e.g., average scores, ranking points). For a tool with no output schema, more detail on return values would be helpful.

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?

Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds context that these are filters for statistical data, but doesn't add much beyond schema. Baseline 3 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 tool returns statistical data for multiple FRC teams and lists filtering options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_team (single team) and get_teams (which likely lacks statistical and aggregation features).

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 when to use this tool (for bulk statistical data with filters) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like get_team suggest this is for aggregated/multiple team data.

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