ChangeGamer

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the lexical meaning of 'Return'. It does not specify if the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description carries the full burden but provides minimal transparency.

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 of 11 words, front-loaded with the key verb 'Return' and specific resource. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not describe the format or structure of the returned information, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret results. More detail on what access and pricing info entails would improve completeness.

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 is empty (0 parameters) and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (access and pricing info), which is meaningful beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 returns 'access and pricing information' for 'ChangeGamer resources' with a specific verb ('Return') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_resource' (likely general resource details) and 'list_resources' (listing all resources) by focusing on access and pricing.

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 implies usage by stating its purpose but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or prerequisites. It does not mention exclusions or context like 'use this instead of get_resource for pricing info'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that free resources return full metadata and Markdown body, while premium resources require a valid api_key and otherwise return a payment-required object. This provides insight into the tool's behavior beyond the input schema. It could be improved by noting non-existent slugs or error responses, but the free/premium distinction is well handled.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and covers the key differentiator (free vs premium) without any fluff. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should detail return values more thoroughly. It covers two return scenarios (free full resource, premium without api_key payment-required) but omits details like error handling for invalid slugs or the structure of the full resource object. The tool has two parameters and a conditional return, so more completeness would be helpful for an agent to parse responses.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (slug and api_key). The description adds no new meaning to slug beyond 'by slug', and for api_key it reinforces the context of premium access. Since the schema already provides adequate definitions, the description does not significantly enhance parameter semantics, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Fetch a ChangeGamer resource by slug') and distinguishes between free and premium resources. This differentiates it from siblings like 'list_resources' (which lists all resources) and 'get_access_info' (which presumably deals with access). The verb-resource pair is specific and 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (fetching a resource by slug) and offers guidance on api_key usage for premium resources. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for listing all resources) or direct users to alternative tools like 'list_resources' for non-specific fetches. The guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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

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

No annotations present, so description bears full burden. It discloses that no body content is returned and lists the metadata fields, giving a clear picture of behavior.

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?

Single, efficient sentence listing fields upfront; no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains return fields and notes lack of body content, making it complete for a simple list 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter semantics, but baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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?

Clearly states it lists all ChangeGamer resources with metadata, differentiating from sibling tools get_access_info and get_resource (which likely target single resources or access details).

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?

States what the tool does but does not explicitly guide when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions.

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