get_player_clubs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing details such as return format, pagination, error behavior, or any access constraints. For a list operation, this lack of transparency leaves uncertainty about the output structure.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description could suffice but is minimal. It does not specify what the returned list contains (e.g., club names, IDs, URLs) or any limitations (e.g., only public clubs). Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 already fully describes the 'username' parameter as a Chess.com username, so the description adds little beyond the context that it represents a player. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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's function: listing the Chess.com clubs a player belongs to. The verb 'List' plus the resource 'clubs' with the player context makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_club or get_country_clubs.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the name and description: when you need a player's clubs. However, there is no mention of alternatives like get_club for club details or get_country_clubs for clubs in a country, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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