List players

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds important operational details: pagination cap of 25, no pagination in MVP, and the precise definition of 'online' as a heartbeat within 90 seconds, which goes well beyond the tool name.

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?

Front-loaded with an actionable first sentence, then organized into clear bullets. Every section earns its place, and there is no redundant elaboration of the schema.

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?

The description is complete for a low-complexity list tool: it covers scope, filters, result limit, status semantics, and usage guidance. It does not enumerate return fields, which is a minor gap given that no output schema is present.

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 already documents both optional filters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the status filter ('online' = heartbeat within the last 90 seconds) and connecting filters to discovery use cases.

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 opens with 'List the digital-signage players (screens) in the calling tenant', using a specific verb and resource with explicit scope. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_playlists and get_player.

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?

It provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, including a concrete alternative: 'call get_player instead, it's cheaper' when a specific player_id is known. This gives an agent clear selection criteria.

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