cy_players_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('조회'), implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or address other behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, input, and output.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '상세 정보' (detailed information) includes, such as player stats, level, or other attributes, which the agent would need to understand the tool's utility. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, more context on return values is needed to be complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'playerId' fully documented in the schema as '플레이어 ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or relationship to other data). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '플레이어 ID로 플레이어 상세 정보를 조회합니다' (Retrieves detailed player information using player ID). It specifies the verb (조회/retrieve), resource (플레이어 상세 정보/player detailed information), and key input (player ID). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cy_players_search or cy_players_matches, which also involve player data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like cy_players_search (which might search by name instead of ID) or cy_players_matches (which might retrieve match history), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations.

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