List report players

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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining what data is associated with players and that fight selection narrows results, which is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core purpose is front-loaded and the optional fight-selection behavior is stated efficiently.

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 read-only list operation, the description sufficiently conveys what data will be returned and how fight selection affects scope. Since there is no output schema, the description gives enough context without needing exhaustive return formatting details.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description only loosely relates to fightID via the fight selector mention and does not add further parameter-level detail, keeping this at baseline.

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 tool lists player actor IDs and maps their observed specs and item levels to fights. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_fights or get_combatant_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 the tool is used to obtain player information for a report, and mentions a fight selector narrows participants. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusion conditions.

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