mlb_player_game_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (stats group/splits) but does not mention side effects, read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not highly transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second shows return structure. No redundant information. 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?

The description covers the basic purpose and return shape, but given no output schema, it lacks details on interpreting stats groups/splits, error conditions, or data availability. For a simple two-param tool, it is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'for that gamePk' and implies personId identifies the player, but does not explain that these are integer IDs from other MLB tools or provide ranges/context. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 uses specific verbs ('stat line') and clearly identifies the resource ('one player's stat line for one specific game'), covering batting/pitching/fielding. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mlb_player_stats (broader stats) and mlb_boxscore (team-focused).

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 explicitly states this is for a single player and a single game, making the context clear. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the narrow scope implicitly guides selection.

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