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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the `primary` game is the fallback for unnamed calls, and the response identifies which game the current connection targets — non-obvious semantics an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the interpretive details (primary, connection target) following. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the salient return contents: labels, per-game settings, primary designation, and connection target. Minor gaps remain — whether list ordering, archived games, or empty-studio behavior matters — but an agent can call this correctly with what is given.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is unfiltered and scoped to the current studio/connection, which is the only 'parameter-like' context that matters here, though it does not state whether archived or unpublished games appear.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the games') plus a clarifying synonym ('publishable keys') and the owning scope ('under your studio'). It also describes what is returned conceptually (labels, per-game settings, primary marker), which separates it from create_game or publish_game without needing the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before create_game, set_game_name, or publish_game. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement and no exclusion naming a sibling such as get_connection_info, which overlaps on the 'current connection target' detail.

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