chesscom: Get player stats

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by detailing the data returned (ratings, best, W/L/D records) and the time controls covered, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention error behavior (e.g., invalid username) or data freshness.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary and adds value. No unnecessary information.

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 no output schema, the description provides essential information about return data (ratings, best, W/L/D records) and time controls. It is fairly complete for a stats tool, but could be more precise about the exact fields (e.g., whether 'best' includes date) or if there are additional stats like games played.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, describing 'username' as case-insensitive. The description does not add further detail about the parameter beyond the schema. While the description ties the parameter to the tool's purpose, it does not enhance understanding beyond the schema's description.

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 verb 'get', the resource 'player stats', and specifies the scope: by time control (daily, rapid, blitz, bullet) and chess960, with current ratings, best, and W/L/D records. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chesscom_get_player (profile info) and chesscom_get_player_archives (game history).

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 when to use it (to retrieve player statistics) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't guide the agent to use chesscom_get_player for basic profile information or chesscom_get_player_archives for game history. The context of siblings is given but not leveraged in the description.

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