get_player_games

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, and 'all finished' clarifies that ongoing games are excluded. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, response format, or any other behavioral traits that might affect invocation or result handling.

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?

A single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No wasted words, perfectly easy to scan.

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 and the schema covers parameters well, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out return shape and potential edge cases (e.g., empty results, list of game objects vs PGN). It is adequate but not complete enough to fully prepare the agent for parsing or handling responses.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented with types, ranges, and descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond restating that the month and player are the scope. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly defines the resource ('all finished Chess.com games for a player in a specific month'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_player_current_daily_games (daily games) and get_player_monthly_pgn (PGN format) by focusing on finished monthly games.

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 usage context (when you need a player's finished games for a month) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no 'when-not-to-use' guidance or reference to sibling tools, leaving the choice among similar tools to the agent.

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