List ASA Players

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

Without annotations, the description provides basic behavioral info (runs command, returns raw + parsed output). However, it omits side effects (likely read-only), permission needs, or error behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and output clearly.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks context about what 'ListPlayers' is, when it's needed, or how the output is structured. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more background for proper usage.

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 covers the single optional parameter (serverName) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so baseline score 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 explicitly states the tool runs the 'ListPlayers' command and returns both raw output and parsed player entries. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like asa_broadcast (messages) and asa_rcon_command (arbitrary commands).

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 instead of alternatives such as asa_rcon_command for custom queries or asa_get_game_log for log retrieval. The description lacks context for selection.

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