psa_probatfacts_subjects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and the description clarifies that it returns every player for one category with numeric subject IDs. It does not explicitly mention side effects, authentication, or pagination, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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 consists of two sentences that are both front-loaded and free of filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the crucial context about the subject_id and its role in the next tool call. Every sentence earns its place.

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 with no output schema, the description explains the return content (players with numeric subject_ids), clarifies that subjects are players, and specifies the relationship to psa-probatfacts-subject. It does not document potential edge cases like empty categories or pagination, but it covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly in the common 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 input schema already provides full coverage for category_id with the description 'Category id, from psa-probatfacts-categories' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond restating that listing is category-scoped. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List PSA ProBatFacts subjects in a category.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool psa-probatfacts-subject by naming it as the next step and explaining that the returned subject_id is passed to that tool. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it relates to nearby 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it lists all players for a category and supplies the subject_id needed for the subsequent psa-probatfacts-subject call. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or exclude alternatives like psa_probatfacts_gallery, but the relationship to the singular subject tool is clear enough for effective selection.

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