nbl_players

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds meaningful context: approximate result count, embedded objects (team, season), and the return shape (type, count, data). It also explicitly states "Auth: none needed," which is useful. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured into three clear sections: overview, return format, and example. It conveys all necessary information without excessive verbosity. The example is compact and practical, and the auth note is a helpful final touch. It loses one point for slight redundancy with the schema's parameter description.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the response structure and embedded fields. It provides a realistic example and explains the relationship between player IDs and other NBL tools. For a simple list tool with one parameter, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 single parameter 'year' is already fully documented in the schema with explanation of the season start year and required status. The description adds an example (2025 = NBL26) and reiterates the parameter is part of the URL path, but these are minor additions over the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 this tool lists all players for a given season, specifying the resource (players) and scope (season). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the player ID feeds nbl_player_stats/nbl_player_boxscores, indicating its role in a broader workflow.

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 implies when to use this tool: to get all players for a season, especially to obtain player IDs for subsequent stats/boxscore queries. It provides an example with a concrete year and notes the parameter is part of the URL path, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools for other player-related needs.

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