get_match_players

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the core function and gives no information about error cases, data availability, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it). No additional behavioral context is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 low complexity (single parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for a tool with no annotations. The output schema helps, but the description itself does not provide enough standalone 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?

The schema has one parameter (match_id) with no description, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by clarifying the parameter's meaning or constraints.

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 a specific action (Get) and a specific resource (the 10 players in a Dota 2 match with their hero assignments). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_match_heroes by focusing on players and hero assignments.

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, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or context. It simply states what the tool does without explaining appropriate use cases.

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