Remix Games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming what data is returned for the game, but says nothing about failure modes (invalid/missing game) or any rate/permission constraints.

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 with no filler; the purpose is stated first and the returned fields follow. It could arguably trim the field enumeration, but nothing is wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient, and its listing of returned fields partially compensates for the absent output schema. Only the lack of error/edge-case guidance keeps it from being fully complete.

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 schema itself documents the 'game' parameter as a game id or remix.gg/g/ slug with length bounds. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup detail beyond 'one game,' so it does not extend meaning past the schema; baseline 3 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 states a clear verb and resource — describing/retrieving a single game — and enumerates the content returned (creator, genres, device, creator's description). The phrase 'one game' implicitly distinguishes it from the list-oriented siblings (search_games, top_games), but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implied by 'use this to describe one game,' which frames it as a single-item lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative list tools, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid slug or id.

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 (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: some games play inline in the conversation, others only return a link to remix.gg, which tells the agent what to expect without opening anything.

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 tight sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and the behavioral split compactly explained. No filler, though it is short enough that a little more routing detail could have been added without bloat.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger and the two possible outcomes (inline play vs. link). An agent has enough to call it correctly, though it doesn't say what to do if the game id is invalid or unavailable.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents that 'game' takes an id or a remix.gg/g/ slug. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (play) and resource (a specific Remix game) with a clear 'now' temporal scope. It doesn't explicitly name how it differs from siblings like get_game or search_games, but the action is 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?

'Use this when the user wants to play a specific Remix game now' gives an explicit trigger condition. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. search_games for finding a game first), so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds corpus scope (free browser games from remix.gg creators), which is useful, but says nothing about ranking, result quality, or empty-result 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded. The ordering puts 'when to use' before 'what it returns', which is mildly unusual but effective.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the corpus scope and trigger condition, leaving only minor gaps like ranking or pagination behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds example query strings ('Tower Blocks', 'space shooter') and confirms genre/device are optional, which is marginal value over the already-documented 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 states a specific action (searching games from natural-language names/descriptions) and delimits the resource ('free browser games made by creators on remix.gg'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_game/play_game in spirit, but never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a clear triggering condition ('when the user names a game or describes one in their own words') plus the optional narrowing dimensions (genre, device). It does not say when to prefer top_games for browsing or get_game for a known ID, so alternatives are left 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/destructive/openWorld false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: results are free and quick-to-start, staff picks are prioritized, and genre results fall back to 'most played' ordering. Only the output shape is left to the output schema, which is appropriate.

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 invocation trigger before the return behavior. The three quoted examples are slightly redundant but each maps to a distinct phrasing pattern an agent may encounter, so they largely earn their 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?

With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and annotations present, the description covers what an agent needs: trigger condition, result character, and ordering. Nothing critical is missing, though it never states the meaning of the default limit or how device filtering interacts with results.

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 all three parameters have descriptions plus enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description corroborates genre selection and ordering ('optionally in one genre, then that genre's most played') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns free, quick-to-start browser games on remix.gg') plus the ranking semantics (staff picks first, then most played in genre). This clearly distinguishes it from get_game (fetch a named game), play_game (launch one), and search_games (keyword 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?

Explicit when-to-use with the discriminating condition ('when the user wants a game to play without naming one') and three concrete example utterances. It does not name the sibling to use instead when the user does name a game, but the contrast is strongly implied.

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