mlb_get_player

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not confirm that the tool is read-only, mention rate limits, or any side effects. The description only states what data is retrieved, not how it behaves.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core purpose and the optional hydrated stats. It is front-loaded and without unnecessary words, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 get tool with one required and one optional parameter, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (bio, position, stats). Although no output schema exists, the description's summary is adequate. Missing mention of return format, but not critical.

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%, and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds context by summarizing return fields (bio, position, stats) and indicating that the hydrate parameter is for stats, but does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema's already clear examples.

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 detailed player information including bio, position, and optionally hydrated stats. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mlb_get_player_stats and mlb_search_players by specifying the scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or specify that for pure stat queries one might prefer mlb_get_player_stats. The optional hydrate parameter is mentioned but without context of alternatives.

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