resolve_players

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by specifying the display-name format, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid IDs, unmatched IDs, duplicates, ordering, or empty arrays. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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. It efficiently communicates the action, input, and output format while remaining immediately scannable.

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 one-parameter mapping tool with read-only annotations, the description gives enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly: input is player_ids, output is display names. The lack of an output schema means return-shape details are not fully covered, but the core behavior is clear.

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 carry the meaning of player_ids. It does so by clarifying that the IDs are Sleeper player IDs and defining the expected output format. The description still leaves some constraints unspecified, such as array size limits or ID format, but it adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the specific verb 'Map' with a clear resource ('Sleeper player IDs') and defines the exact output format ('Name POS-TEAM' display names). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_players or get_unrostered_players, which find or list players rather than converting IDs to display names.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of exclusion cases. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used whenever Sleeper player IDs need converting to display names.

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