read_players

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

The description implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Lists' and the tool name 'read_', but annotations are minimal (only title). It does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it specify authentication or rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

A single sentence of ten words, front-loading the action and listing fields efficiently. No superfluous content.

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 parameterless list tool, the description fully specifies what information is returned. With no output schema, the field list compensates completely. The tool's behavior is fully captured given its simplicity.

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 (schema coverage 100% vacuously). Per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no extra param info, which is acceptable as there are none to describe.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the exact resource 'players', naming the fields included. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_entities' (all entities) and 'inspect_entity' (single entity).

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a player list with specified data, but it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives. However, the sibling names and purpose clarity provide enough context for correct selection.

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