compare_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. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic comparison, such as how names are resolved, error handling for invalid counts, or the nature of the output (though output schema exists). The description is minimal and lacks context like whether it requires exact player names or handles nicknames.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and the required input format. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the purpose and parameter format adequately. However, the lack of behavioral transparency slightly reduces completeness, but it remains sufficient for this low-complexity tool.

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 schema only defines 'names' as a string with no description. The description adds crucial semantics: it must be a comma-separated list and should contain 2-4 players. This meaningfully compensates for the complete lack of schema description.

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 function: 'Compare 2-4 players head to head.' This includes a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('players'), and the range (2-4) distinguishes it from other player-related tools like player_report or rookie_report.

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 context is clear: use when you want to compare multiple players. The instruction 'Pass a comma-separated list' indicates the expected input format. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it gets a 4 rather than 5.

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