tournament_mine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and excels. It discloses that results vary by user role (creator returns 200 rows, players returned empty arrays), that it makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, locally limits arrays to 100 rows and 256 KiB, reports truncation, and refuses oversized records. This is far beyond typical tool descriptions.

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 dense and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Every sentence adds valuable caveats or behavioral details without fluff. The structure flows logically from purpose to observations to limitations to error handling.

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 a single parameterjá no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main call context: response truncation, final state, pagination, and refusal behavior. However, it never describes the shape or meaning of the returned array beyond 'mine listing', and the exact content structure is left vague, which is a minor gap for agents that need to process results.

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 documents username with minLength 1)Skip, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only says 'for an explicit username' and that 'required inputs reflect tool policy', which adds almost nothing beyond the parameter name and required flag. The statement about 'other declared filters' is ambiguous and not tied to the actual parameter.

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 'Read the upstream mine listing for an explicit username', identifying the specific resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from other tournament tools by emphasizing that it is not a complete participation history and by targeting a username-based 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 gives clear context: you use this when you need a mine listing for a specific username mind. It explicitly warns not to present it as a complete participation history, which serves as a negative usage guideline. It does not name alternative tools, but the role-based behavior (creator vs player) and pagination notes also inform when it is appropriate.

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