get_player_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation (获取/获取 means 'get'), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, what happens if the player doesn't exist, whether there are rate limits, or how fresh the statistics are. The description is minimal and doesn't provide sufficient behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently communicate the core functionality. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second specifies what data is returned. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from return values.

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 read-only statistics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It tells what the tool does and what data it returns, but doesn't address important contextual elements like error conditions, data freshness, authentication requirements, or how the statistics are calculated. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more detail about return values, but it only lists them without explaining format or units.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain the format of mac_addr, clarify what constitutes a valid game_id, or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: '获取玩家的战绩统计' (get player performance statistics) and specifies the types of data returned (win rate, total matches, net chips won). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_game_state' or 'get_leaderboard' by focusing on individual player statistics rather than game state or rankings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_player_records' which might be a closer sibling.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_player_records' (which might provide detailed records rather than aggregated statistics) or 'get_leaderboard' (which might show comparative rankings). There's no discussion of prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusion criteria.

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