YouGame

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact verdict categories, the 8 MB text scanning limit, the requirement to pass all file paths with relative forward-slash paths, and the iterative 'fix and rerun' workflow. It also explains the meaning of 'broken' ('the game will not start'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/verdict, input preparation rules, and post-check workflow. It is front-loaded with the main verb and result, and contains no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (verdict types) and provides all necessary input constraints and the recommended follow-up action. For a pre-upload validation tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical parameter semantics: 'every file path in the folder', 'relative to the folder, forward slashes', which files need text (index.html plus .html/.css/.js files), and the 8 MB total text cap. This meaningfully extends what the schema alone provides, helping the agent construct the `files` array correctly.

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 action ('Runs YouGame's pre-upload checks'), a specific target ('build folder'), and a clear output ('verdict: ready, risky, or broken'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like publish_game, fetch, or search by defining exactly what it checks and what it returns.

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 gives workflow context: run it before upload, fix reported issues, rerun until ready, then zip and upload. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the pre-upload placement and 'until the verdict is ready' instruction make the usage window clear.

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?

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the full text of the section is returned and that the id comes from a prior search, which supplements the annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and outcome, then specifies the input format and provenance, making every part informative.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, what input is needed, and where that input comes from. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the id is a section id from search and gives an example, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('full text of one YouGame documentation section'), and it specifies the input is the id returned by search. It is distinct from the search tool, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from content-related siblings like get_sdk_reference or get_publish_guide.

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 phrase 'by the id search returned' provides clear workflow context, implying this tool should be used after search and to retrieve a specific section. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context about what content the guide covers, including build layout, paths, limits, the runtime sandbox, common failures, and verification/upload steps, without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core content and the second sentence provides the direct usage instruction, making efficient use of every word.

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 parameterless read-only guide tool, the description provides sufficient context: what the guide covers, why an agent would need it, and when to read it. There is no output schema or complex behavior that would require additional explanation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema for the description to supplement. The baseline of 4 applies here, and the description appropriately focuses on what the returned guide contains rather than parameter details that do not exist.

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 that this tool retrieves the rules and verification steps for making a browser game YouGame-ready, with a specific resource ('publish guide') and content areas. It is distinct from siblings like check_build or publish_game by its focus on rules and how-to guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'Read this first when making a game YouGame-ready' gives an explicit usage context and priority. It does not mention when to use alternative sibling tools instead, but the 'read this first' instruction is clear enough to guide an agent toward this tool at the start of the workflow.

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?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by noting that integration requires 'One script tag' and 'no account needed,' which helps an agent understand access and setup expectations.

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 that immediately states what the tool is, then compresses the scope and setup into an efficient list. Every clause adds information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter reference tool, the description adequately covers what the reference includes and key access characteristics. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the form of the returned reference, but the current content is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema fully reflects this with an empty properties object. The description has no parameter semantics to explain, and the feature list provides the relevant selection context, so the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 explicitly identifies the resource as 'the complete YouGame SDK reference' and enumerates covered areas (leaderboards, multiplayer, matchmaking, friend invites, skill ratings, coins). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_publish_guide, which focuses on a different reference topic.

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 use when an agent needs SDK integration information and lists the topics it covers. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as get_publish_guide or search, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the description only needs to add useful context. It discloses an authentication requirement ('Needs the creator's API key') and clarifies scoping to the creator's published games, which goes beyond the structured annotations. This is meaningful behavioral context for a safe read operation.

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 compact, consisting of one sentence listing the output fields and one sentence noting the API key requirement. The most important scoping information is front-loaded in the first clause. Minor awkward phrasing and slight redundancy with the parameter description prevent 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what is returned, whose games are included, and the authentication requirement. The parameter schema fills in header/environment variable fallback details. Missing details like pagination or ordering are minor for this type of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the api_key parameter is already thoroughly described in the schema, including when to use it and the privacy tradeoff. The tool description adds only the general statement that the creator's API key is needed, which does not exceed what the schema already communicates. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource: games published by the API key's creator, and lists the specific fields returned. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', and does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic operation.

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 this tool is for retrieving the API key creator's own published games, which provides some usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over search or other siblings, nor does it mention exclusions. The schema's api_key parameter also explains authentication preferences, but the tool description itself offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

Annotations already mark this as a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: publishing makes the game live immediately, requires the creator's API key, and depends on a prior upload verification step. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 longer than average, but every part earns its place: the purpose is front-loaded, and the staging instructions, curl example, upload reply handling, and invocation condition are all directly actionable. The structure is clear and logical.

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 tool's complexity, 12 parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description does a strong job of covering prerequisites and the exact call sequence. It does not state what this tool returns after publishing, but 'live at once' conveys the primary outcome sufficiently for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds useful context about where uploadId comes from and that the remaining fields are 'listing details,' but it does not meaningfully extend the per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Publishes'), names the resource ('a staged build as a game on YouGame'), and states the key effect ('live at once'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_build or my_games, which have different purposes.

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 gives an explicit workflow: stage and upload the build via curl, inspect the check report, fix broken builds, and only then call this tool with the uploadId and listing details. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety disclosure is needed. The description adds behavioral context by naming the exact document set and the output shape (matching sections with ids), and explicitly defines the follow-up fetch call.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with action, scope, and result; the second provides usage criteria and a concrete follow-up instruction.

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 one-parameter, read-only search tool, the description covers the search scope, the output format, when to use it, and the next action. No output schema exists, but 'matching sections with ids' is sufficient for an agent to use the results correctly.

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 covers the single query parameter 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving natural-language question examples ('how scores are posted, what multiplayer guarantees, what breaks a build') and clarifying that the query should represent a specific question, which helps the agent formulate effective queries.

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 ('Searches'), a precise resource ('the YouGame documentation (the publish guide and the SDK reference)'), and the output ('returns matching sections with ids'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling document readers like get_publish_guide or get_sdk_reference by framing it as targeted search.

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?

It explicitly says to use it 'to answer a specific question' and contrasts with 'without reading a whole document', implying when whole guides are needed the sibling get_* tools are appropriate. It also routes the agent to call 'fetch with an id' afterward, naming the next step.

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