le_get_players_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but does not specify what 'stats' are included, whether results are sorted, or any performance implications. The mention of a default limit is helpful but insufficient.

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 sentence with no extraneous words, achieving the highest efficiency. Every word adds value.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the basic action and default behavior, but lacks detail on the output structure or relationship to the singular player stats tool.

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 there is only one parameter. The description adds minimal value by indicating a default of 50, which likely corresponds to the limit parameter, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter's purpose or allowed range.

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 'Get all player stats (default 50)' clearly indicates a retrieval operation for multiple player stats and mentions a default limit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool le_get_player_stats (singular), which could cause ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like le_get_player_stats or filtering options. There are no usage conditions or exclusions mentioned.

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