get_player_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the nature and structure of the output (per-90 output, process fingerprint) but does not mention any side effects, error behavior, or data limitations. It is a read-only operation by implication, but not explicitly stated.

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 phrase with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it front-loads the core purpose before adding distinctive detail.

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?

The tool is a simple read with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides sufficient high-level context for the profile's content, but could mention edge cases or prerequisites (e.g., player must exist).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It references the player implicitly ('A player's...'), giving context to the player_id parameter. However, it does not explain the parameter format or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type.

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 defines the tool as providing a player's playing-style profile, with specific content (per-90 output and multi-axis process fingerprint). It distinguishes from siblings like get_player by emphasizing 'how they play, not just how good they are'.

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 appropriate use case: obtaining a player's style profile rather than general performance or value. The 'not just how good they are' phrase hints at when to choose this over get_player, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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