get_titled_players

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get a list,' which implies a read operation, but it does not explain whether results are paginated, ordered, complete, or limited to a particular set of titled players. It also does not mention rate limits, response shape, or any edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and readable, though it is at the edge of under-specification; the terse phrasing leaves out important usage and parameter context, which prevents a perfect score.

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: one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description adequately conveys that the result is a list of titled players from Chess.com. However, with no output schema or annotations, the agent is left without details about the returned player fields, result limits, or any behavioral caveats, making this minimally viable rather than complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameter's meaning, but it does not. The single required 'title' parameter is only inferable from the phrase 'titled players'; the description never states that the tool filters by title or that the title value must be one of the enumerated chess title abbreviations.

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 and resource: 'Get a list of titled players from Chess.com.' It is clear about the broad action and object, and 'titled players' is distinct enough to separate it from most player-related siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like get_leaderboards or get_player_profile, so it loses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_leaderboards, get_streamers, or get_player_profile. The description only states what it does, not when an agent should choose it, and it provides no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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