chesscom: Get player

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's added value is moderate. It lists the fields returned, providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions, but could have mentioned that it returns public data only and does not require authentication.

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?

Single sentence, 18 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential information well. It explains what fields are returned, but could be slightly more complete by noting that the data is public and no authentication is needed.

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?

Only one parameter ('username') with 100% schema coverage. The description adds the detail that the username is 'case-insensitive', which is not in the schema, thus providing additional meaning.

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 retrieves a Chess.com player's public profile, listing specific fields (name, country, joined date, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('player profile'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like chesscom_get_player_stats or chesscom_get_player_archives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies using it for basic profile info, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool might be more appropriate for specific needs.

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