get_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: partial and accent-insensitive matching, and the critical behavior of returning multiple candidates when ambiguous rather than guessing. This is valuable transparency for an agent deciding whether to act on the result.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds critical behavioral context. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the query semantics and the ambiguity behavior. It could mention what happens if no match is found (returns null? empty array?), but the output schema might cover that, and the description's focus on ambiguity is the most important edge case.

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 has only one parameter 'query' with 0% description coverage, but the description explains that the query can be an id or a name, and that it supports partial and accent-insensitive matching. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but doesn't specify the format for id vs name (e.g., how to distinguish them) or any constraints on the query string.

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 finds one squad player by id or by name, with partial and accent-insensitive matching. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_squad (which likely returns the whole squad) and search_squad (which likely searches more broadly), by specifying it targets a single player and handles ambiguity.

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 this tool: when you need a specific player by id or name, and it explicitly warns against guessing when ambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like search_squad for broader searches, but the context of 'one squad player' and the ambiguity handling provides clear usage context.

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