get-skills-scores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state it is read-only. It also uses 'either...or' language that may misrepresent the schema's allowance for both event_id and team_id simultaneously, and does not disclose behavior when no parameters are supplied.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently communicates the two modes. Every word earns its place, and there is no 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?

With 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify behavior when no parameters are provided, whether event_id and team_id can be combined, or how type and season filters interact. The either/or phrasing further obscures the full parameter space.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions; it merely restates the two main parameters. No new semantic detail is provided for type or season.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('skills scores for VEX teams'), and clearly distinguishes the two modes of operation (specific event or team history). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get-team-rankings or get-team-awards.

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 states the two primary use cases: retrieving scores for a specific event or for a team's skills history. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools by name.

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