Get player

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the return shape matches list_players' data items, states 404 behavior for missing ids, and clarifies tenancy scoping ('never cross-tenant'). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'fetch' statement, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits, which are less critical for a single-get operation.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections: 'When to use', 'When NOT to use', and 'What to know'. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation: what it returns (same shape as list_players), error behavior (404), and tenancy constraint. No critical gaps remain given the tool's complexity.

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 100% for player_id ('UUID of the player'), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description mentions having a player_id as a prerequisite, but adds no new syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch a single player by id.' This is a specific verb+resource with scope, and it distinguishes from siblings like list_players (multiple players) and update_player (modification). No 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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It says use when you have a player_id and need state/content/last-seen, and NOT to use when you only have a name, directing to list_players first. This provides clear guidance and an explicit alternative.

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