erlc_players

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only notes that location and wanted data appear 'when supplied'. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, whether calls are scoped to a configured server, or behavior when no players are connected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and return content are stated up front. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument list tool, though 'when supplied' is slightly vague.

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 simple no-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say more about what the returned player records contain and whether the call is scoped to a specific server. The v1/v2 relationship with erlc_v1_players is also left implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface that needs explaining, and the description correctly avoids inventing arguments.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (connected players) and scopes the operation to API v2, which implicitly separates it from the sibling erlc_v1_players. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names the v1 sibling outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: mentioning 'API v2' signals this is the modern variant next to erlc_v1_players, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative. An agent must infer the routing from the version tag alone.

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