pl_player_basic

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the operation is read-only (returns profile) and lists output fields. However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or permissions. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second lists the return fields. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the key action ('Lightweight player profile').

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 specifies the tool's output fields, which is helpful since there is no output schema. However, it does not mention that the pid must come from another tool (e.g., pl_players), nor does it clarify if it supports batch queries. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is mostly complete but could benefit from workflow context.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The description implies that 'pid' is a player ID but does not explicitly state it. Given the lack of schema descriptions, the tool should compensate, but it only indirectly indicates the parameter's purpose.

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 it returns a lightweight player profile with specific fields (name, position, country, currentTeam). The term 'lightweight' and the limited fields help distinguish it from more detailed player tools (e.g., pl_player, pl_player_info), though no explicit comparison is made.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other player tools (e.g., pl_player, pl_player_season_stats). The agent must infer from the 'lightweight' label and return fields. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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