get_team_players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists output fields but omits behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering behavior, whether historical players are included, or any authentication requirements. For a data-returning tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 one concise sentence that conveys the essence without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and key fields, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description and schema give a workable picture. However, the absence of an output schema and lack of detail about the response structure (e.g., exact field names, ordering) leaves some uncertainty, though not enough to prevent basic use.

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 schema description covers the sole parameter (team_id) thoroughly, specifying its source and constraints. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already provides full coverage, so 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?

The description states the resource (team players) and key output fields (games played, wins, current-member flag), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_team_matches or get_team_heroes. It lacks a strong verb but is still unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, and no exclusions are mentioned. The description implies a lookup use case but does not articulate scenarios or differentiate from related player/team tools.

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