team_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. It only lists data topics, leaving the agent unaware of the tool's operational impact.

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 12-word sentence, efficiently conveying the core components and using a colon to introduce them. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words, though it is terse.

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?

The description covers the main data areas provided by the tool, and the presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere. However, it lacks guidance on the team parameter format and does not explain when the tool should be used in the broader workflow.

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 defines a single 'team' parameter with no description, and the description only says 'NFL team' without specifying the expected format (e.g., name, abbreviation, ID). This is insufficient for an agent to construct the argument correctly, especially with 0% schema coverage.

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 tool provides 'offensive environment for an NFL team' with specific components like O-line, pace, run/pass split, and schedule, which distinguishes it from defense_report. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get', 'fetch'), making it unclear whether the tool retrieves, calculates, or configures this information.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over siblings such as player_report or plan_my_draft, nor does it state any prerequisites or alternative scenarios.

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