ludoteca.dev

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it explains the default ordering when no text is given ('devuelve los últimos añadidos') and enumerates the returned fields (id, título, año, estudio, país, url_ficha). This is a clear value add for an agent that needs to know what to expect.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second explains no-text behavior, third explains return values and alternative tool. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

For a search tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains return fields and the detail alternative. It also covers the no-text behavior and filter combination. While pagination (limite) is not mentioned, the schema provides that detail. Nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description maps the filters to their parameters (título, tienda, país del estudio, año) but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. It omits any mention of the limite parameter. With high coverage, a baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Busca) and resource (videojuegos), and distinguishes its scope from the sibling tool ficha_juego by noting that detail fields are handled elsewhere. The description also specifies the available filters (título, tienda, país del estudio, año) and the return fields, making its purpose 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use ficha_juego for detail (tiendas, editoras, ids externos) and provides the condition (when you need those details). It also states the behavior when no text is provided, which serves as a usage guideline. This covers when to use this tool vs the alternative.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful return-shape semantics, notably that edited games carry a solo_en flag indicating store-exclusive publishing, but says nothing about failure behavior when the name/slug is not 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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads what the entity is and what accompanies it. The parenthetical about solo_en is dense but earns its place by clarifying the return payload.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers the entity type, the country field, and the developed-vs-edited game distinction including the solo_en flag. Missing only error/not-found behavior, which is a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting the name-or-slug format and giving examples. The description merely restates the same name/slug duality, adding no new syntax or format detail; baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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?

States a specific resource (un estudio o editora) and what is returned (su país y sus juegos), which lets an agent distinguish it from game-focused siblings like ficha_juego or buscar_juegos. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb and never names an alternative tool, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of any sibling tool. 'Acepta el slug o el nombre' is an input-format note, not a usage condition, so an agent gets no routing help from the description.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: the response maps an input id to ids on all other platforms, the id should match the store URL form, and up to 100 ids can be passed comma-separated in one 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?

The purpose and id-format guidance are well front-loaded, but enumerating all 23 source values duplicates the fuente enum already present in the schema and consumes most of the text without adding information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return, and it does ('devuelve sus ids en todas las demás') plus batching limits. Together with the enum for fuente, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 only 50%, so the description has to compensate, and it does: it explains that the input id is a store/database id valid as it appears in the URL, and that the id field accepts up to 100 comma-separated values. This meaningfully extends the schema's brief 'uno o varios ids separados por comas'.

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 ('Encuentra la ficha de un juego a partir de su id... y devuelve sus ids en todas las demás') with a concrete example (Xbox id -> Steam appid). The purpose is unmistakable, though it never explicitly names how it differs from sibling tools like buscar_juegos or ficha_juego.

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 implies when the tool is useful (cross-referencing an external store id) and clarifies that the id should be given as it appears in the store URL. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over buscar_juegos or ficha_juego, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned figures adds genuinely useful context about the payload, but it says nothing about freshness guarantees, caching, or response shape beyond the listed items.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the four measured quantities with zero filler. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, closed-world stats tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing information: what figures come back. It could note that it takes no arguments or that results reflect the whole catalog, but it is adequate.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema-description baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics and instead spends its words on output content.

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 names a clear resource (site statistics) and enumerates the specific figures returned: published game count, games per store, top countries, and last-update date. This is far more specific than the tool name alone, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like buscar_juegos or ficha_juego.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this versus alternatives. An agent can infer it is an aggregate-overview tool, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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?

The annotations already confirm this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the record contains and noting that a title input returns both a best match and other candidates.

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 front-loaded with 'Ficha completa de un juego' and then lists the returned fields and accepted input types. It is information-dense but still readable, with no major 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly: core fields, store-level data, other versions, and external database IDs. For a single-parameter read tool, this is complete enough for accurate 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 the single parameter and its accepted formats. The description adds meaning by clarifying that title input triggers a best-match fallback and returns additional candidates, which is not in the schema.

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 resource and the operation: a full game record with description, studio, store links, versions, and external database IDs. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling buscar_juegos, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 accepted input forms, which implies how to use the tool, but it does not say when to use it instead of buscar_juegos or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicitly guided.

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