faceit_getPlayerBans

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 accurately describes the operation as a retrieval of bans and includes endpoint information. It could add details about pagination behavior, but it is sufficiently transparent for this simple read operation.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, usage hint, endpoint, then parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the format makes it 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description states 'Returns: Bans of a user,' which is adequate but minimal. More detail on the structure of a ban object would improve completeness, but the current version is sufficient for basic use.

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 description compensates fully for 0% schema coverage. It lists all three parameters with types, defaults, and constraints (e.g., offset min 0, limit min 1 max 100), adding substantial value beyond the schema's bare types.

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 'Retrieve all bans of a player' and 'list active and historical bans for a known player,' providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like faceit_getPlayer or faceit_getPlayerHistory.

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 includes 'Use to list active and historical bans for a known player,' giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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