get_district_teams_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the behavior as a safe read operation is clear. The description adds that it is the 'lightest enumeration', confirming minimal data transfer, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like output format or error handling.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the use case, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose and recommended usage. However, it does not describe the return format (array of strings), though this is reasonably inferred from 'team keys'.

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 already provides a detailed description of the district_key parameter with examples. The description adds value by suggesting use of get_districts to enumerate valid keys, providing additional usage guidance beyond the schema.

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 team keys for an FRC district, using verb 'List' and resource 'team keys'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Lightest enumeration' and 'ideal for driving per-team lookups', implying it returns minimal data compared to full team tools.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool for per-team lookups, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_district_teams or get_district_teams_simple for richer data.

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