get_player_games_by_month

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and provides no information about return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential errors. For a tool that likely returns game data, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, but conciseness itself is good.

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?

With 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent would need to know the meaning and constraints of year/month (e.g., valid ranges), the shape of the returned data, and any differences from similar tools. The description provides none of this, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only says 'specific month' which vaguely hints at year/month but does not clarify format (e.g., month range 1-12, year formatting, username case sensitivity). None of the three parameters are individually explained, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states a specific verb (get), a resource (player's games), and a scope (specific month), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_player_current_games or get_player_game_archives by its month-based filter, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The core action is unambiguous.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many game-related siblings (e.g., get_player_game_archives, get_player_current_games, download_player_games_pgn). An agent must infer usage from the name and description, which is insufficient given the large sibling set. No exclusions or alternative routes are mentioned.

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