get_player_ped

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It describes a read operation ('get'), which implies safety. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or provide details beyond the function name. The output schema likely covers the return format, so the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences. Every word adds value, clearly stating the purpose and hinting at common usage.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and low complexity, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core purpose and hints at its role in native chains. It might benefit from noting that it's safe to call repeatedly, but for a trivial getter, 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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information as the schema is already complete.

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 specific action ('get the player's ped handle') and the native function (PLAYER_PED_ID). It also distinguishes the tool as a common starting point for native chains, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'call_native' or 'native_info'.

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 that this tool is often used as a first step ('most native chains start here'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to. For a simple getter with no parameters, this is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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