psa_probatfacts_gallery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-only retrieval of a player's full image gallery and explains what the images represent, but it does not mention pagination, response shape, error behavior, or any access constraints.

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 front-loaded with the main action and expands naturally into content and input provenance. It is compact, though 'exemplar image gallery' and 'player' appear twice, creating minor redundancy without harming clarity.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: what the tool returns, what the subject_id represents, and where that id comes from. It stops short of describing the gallery response structure or edge cases, but it is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 schema already documents subject_id as a numeric id from a psa-probatfacts-subjects result. The description essentially repeats that provenance rather than adding new parameter semantics, which matches the baseline expected for full 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a PSA ProBatFacts player's exemplar image gallery.' It further clarifies the resource by describing the content as real, captioned examples of authenticated bats used for authentication reference, which distinguishes it from related PSA gallery/subject 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 gives clear contextual guidance by stating that subject_id comes from a psa-probatfacts-subjects result, telling the agent how to obtain the required input. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the prerequisite is clear enough for correct usage.

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