analyze_player

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behaviorais, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond those annotations: the five-page/fifty-score limit, coverage and sample limits, and supported play contexts. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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, dense sentence with no filler; it front-loads the resource and its limits before describing the computed outputs. The phrase 'includes coverage and sample limits' is fairly cryptic, but overall every clause contributes substantive 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?

With 16 parameters, no required parameters, a low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden that it only partially meets. It gives page/score limits and supported contexts, but it does not clarify the return structure, how filters interact, or what 'coverage and sample limits' concretely mean for an agent invoking the 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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It only indirectly explains maxPages and context ('Supports general, noMods and noPause'), leaving mode, sort, order, search, starsFrom/starsTo, difficulty, rankedOnly, accFromPercent/accToPercent, and modifiers unexplained in the description.

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 states a specific set of actions: reading up to five pages of fifty scores, computing grouped percentage statistics, and suggesting practice maps. This clearly differentiates analyze_player from the sibling list_player_scores, which would handle raw score retrieval, by foregrounding analysis and recommendations rather than simple listing.

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 implies usage for analytical and practice-oriented tasks through 'compute grouped percentage statistics' and 'suggest previously played maps for practice,' but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool. The supported contexts (general, noMods, noPause) provide some usage framing but no clear routing against sibling tools.

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