pl_players

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states pagination and return fields, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, or other behaviors.

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 very concise with three sentences: purpose, return format, and an example. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary text, though the return format could be integrated more efficiently.

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 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, pagination mechanics (next_cursor), or possible values for position, leaving significant gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (cid, sid, limit, position, next_cursor). The agent must infer cid and sid from context; position and next_cursor are not described at all.

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 is a player directory for a season, paginated, and lists the return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pl_player and pl_players_by_id by indicating it is an index page, though it could be more explicit about its scope.

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-related tools like pl_player_basic or pl_player_season_stats. The usage is implied (get a paginated list of players) but not compared to alternatives.

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