Get player profile

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and open-world. The description adds that a public profile is required and lists the fields returned, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 two short sentences that efficiently convey purpose, returned data, and requirements. No extraneous information.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description adequately covers the returned fields, prerequisites, and parameter behavior. The only missing element is potential error cases, but given the simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 already describes the parameter with pattern and description, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds additional context: a default behavior when omitted and a prerequisite conversion step, enriching the semantics beyond the schema.

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 the action (get) and resource (player's public profile) and lists specific fields. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_player_achievements or get_recently_played, which could cause ambiguity about which to use for player data.

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 includes a prerequisite (API key and public profile) and advises using resolve_vanity_url to convert vanity URLs before calling this tool. However, it does not clarify when to use this tool over other player-related siblings like get_player_achievements or get_owned_games, leaving some ambiguity.

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