Gameshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the content is "edited" (curated rather than raw), but says nothing about freshness, pagination, or what happens with an out-of-range date.

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, zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the routing guidance. 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 read-only, single-optional-param tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It could note the timezone/date semantics or what the "edited" overview contains, but no critical calling information 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 100% and the single optional date parameter is fully documented with format and default behavior in the schema itself. The description restates the latest-vs-date choice but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get Gameshot's edited daily overview") and clarifies scope via the latest-issue vs. explicit-date distinction. It partially differentiates from siblings by contrasting with a "raw chronological list," though it never names the alternative tool.

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 states when to use it ("when the user asks for a daily report rather than a raw chronological list"), which gives a clear selection condition against the chronological-list sibling. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool or stating when not to use it (e.g., historical backfill vs. latest).

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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context the annotations don't: internal heat scores are deliberately omitted from the response. It could say more about the result ordering or freshness window, but it meaningfully augments 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?

Three clauses, all front-loaded and information-dense: what it returns, when to use it, and when to use the sibling instead. No 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 single-param, read-only, no-output-schema list tool, the description fully covers purpose, alternative routing, and an important response caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% – the schema documents limit's range (1–10) and default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about limit, so 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 and resource ('Get the current Gameshot Top 10') with the added detail that each event carries a one-based rank. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling gameshot_get_latest by naming it.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('what is hot now', discovering valid story public IDs) and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('use gameshot_get_latest for a chronological news list'). This is explicit when-to-use/when-to-use-other 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that — no freshness/latency, pagination, or result-shape context — so it neither enriches nor contradicts.

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 short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the mode preference, then the exclusions. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 4-parameter, no-required-args tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, defaulting policy and exclusions adequately. The one meaningful gap is the unresolved overlap with the daily/weekly/monthly briefing siblings, which the agent cannot disambiguate from this text alone.

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 enums are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine decision value on top: it states a defaulting policy for 'mode' ('prefer selected') and frames 'window' values as briefing types, which the schema only describes mechanically.

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 ('Get the latest Gameshot items') plus its scope (24-hour or 7-day briefing), which an agent can act on immediately. However, it never differentiates itself from the overlapping siblings gameshot_get_daily, gameshot_get_weekly and gameshot_get_monthly, whose whole purpose appears to be daily/weekly briefings.

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?

Gives real usage conditions: 'Prefer selected mode unless the user explicitly asks for every public item' and two explicit exclusions (named-topic search, multi-source event context). It stops short of naming the alternative tools (e.g. gameshot_search, gameshot_get_story) that those exclusions point to, so the agent must infer the routing.

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, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the report is 'edited' and how content is aggregated and grouped, which is useful context, but it discloses nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or response shape beyond the section/overview hint.

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 tightly written sentences: the first front-loads purpose and content, the second gives the usage/parameter convention. No filler or 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 single optional-param, non-mutating read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what the report contains and when to call it. It could still mention sibling selection or expected content ordering, but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 100% and the single parameter's format (YYYY-MM, optional) and latest-if-omitted behavior are already documented in the schema. The description's 'omit month for the latest' merely restates that, adding no new syntax or constraint detail, so 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 (Get) plus the exact resource (Gameshot's edited monthly report) and unpacks what the resource contains (most important events chosen from its dailies, grouped by section, with an overview). This lets an agent distinguish it from the daily and weekly siblings by the aggregation cadence named in the tool.

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 says when to use it ('for what happened this month or in a given month') and gives the omit-month convention for the latest. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., get_weekly/get_daily) or exclusion conditions, so it's clear context without full routing 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the constraint on ID provenance, which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose return format or whether report_limit affects pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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 purpose then the ID-provenance constraint. Efficient, with no wasted clauses, though purpose and constraint could be even tighter.

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 annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly: an agent knows what it returns, which ID to use, and where to get it. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates return contents well enough.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the public_id provenance rule but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a clear verb (Get) and enumerates the returned resources (timeline, latest development, digest, related events) for one public story. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like gameshot_get_latest or gameshot_get_hot_topics, but the phrase 'for one public story' implicitly distinguishes it from the list-oriented siblings.

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?

Clear precondition: only pass a public_id obtained from gameshot_get_hot_topics links.story. It doesn't state when NOT to use it versus alternatives like gameshot_search or gameshot_get_latest, so no explicit exclusion, but the sourcing requirement is a strong context cue.

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, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the content is curated/edited rather than raw, it is grouped by section with an overview, and omitting week returns the latest. It says nothing about freshness lag, volume, or auth, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the resource and content shape, then appends usage and the default in a single clause. No filler, no repetition of the name or schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so at a high level (events grouped by section plus an overview). Read-only annotations cover safety and the sole optional parameter is fully documented, leaving only minor gaps such as result size or ordering.

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 single week parameter already documents the ISO format and the omit-for-latest default, so the description's "omit week for the latest" is a restatement. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 (get Gameshot's edited weekly report) and describes the composition of the artifact: curated events drawn from the dailies, grouped by section, with an overview. The weekly framing clearly separates it from siblings like gameshot_get_daily, gameshot_get_monthly, and gameshot_get_story.

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 for what happened this week or in a given ISO week; omit week for the latest" gives an explicit use condition plus the default behavior, which is exactly the decision an agent faces. It does not name a specific alternative (e.g. use get_daily for today), so it stops short of full routing 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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: a two-tier retrieval strategy that prefers editorial picks and silently broadens to all public items only on empty picks, which tells the agent results may widen without the query changing.

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, no filler. The scope and query-type constraint is front-loaded and the fallback behavior follows immediately, so an agent gets the essentials in the first clause.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, temporal scope, accepted inputs, and the retrieval fallback. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation, which matters given six similarly named get_* tools in the same namespace.

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 q, limit, window, and category are all self-documented, making 3 the baseline. The description only adds the interpretation of q (topic, company, product, or person) and restates the 2–200 character bound and 7-day default already present in the schema; it says nothing about limit or category semantics.

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 (Search) and resource (Gameshot items), plus the scope constraint (latest 7 days) and accepted query types (topic, company, product, person). It does not name or contrast itself with any of the six sibling get_* tools, which is the one thing keeping it from 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?

The description explains the internal fallback ('searches editorial picks first and automatically expands to all public items only when picks have no result'), which is useful routing context. However, it never says when an agent should choose gameshot_search over gameshot_get_latest, gameshot_get_weekly, or gameshot_get_hot_topics, so selection guidance is only implied.

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