REG-Vault

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

No annotations exist, so the description partially compensates by explaining the tool is read-only (Fetch) and returns specific fields. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., if slug/hash not found) or performance traits.

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?

Single sentence with clear structure: action + identifiers + output fields. No unnecessary words.

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 low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is adequate but could mention error handling or uniqueness assumptions. It covers the basic functionality.

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 input schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions: 'slug_or_hash' has a description explaining its format. The description adds no further parameter details beyond the schema. For two parameters, schema provides adequate coverage.

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 tool fetches a single game using two identification methods (system+slug or ROM hash) and lists returned fields. The verb 'Fetch' combined with specific identification methods distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_systems or search_games.

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 usage when needing a single game's details via slug or hash, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for bulk listing use list_systems or search_games). No exclusion conditions or alternatives are provided.

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?

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral info. Description explains the tool returns counts per character, which is clear. However, it doesn't mention read-only nature, performance implications, or what happens if system is invalid. With no annotations, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 wasted words. Front-loaded with the key purpose. Perfectly concise for the complexity level.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return type (counts per character) and a use case. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior if system not found.

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 single parameter 'system' is required but not described in schema (coverage 0%). Description mentions 'for a system' but doesn't specify format, examples, or constraints beyond being a string. With only one parameter and implicit meaning, it is minimally adequate.

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?

Clearly states it returns per-letter game counts for a system, specifying the character set (A-Z, 0-9, other). The verb 'get' and noun 'letter counts' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_game or list_systems, which perform different operations.

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?

Useful for alphabet navigation, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No comparison to siblings like search_games for filtering. The description implies a use case but doesn't help decide between this and other tools.

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?

No annotations are provided, so description bears full burden. It states that it returns 'stats' but does not describe the format, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or if it's read-only. With no annotations, a score of 3 is adequate but lacks detail.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It communicates the tool's purpose and scope with minimal words.

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 zero parameters, no required inputs, and no output schema or annotations, the description is relatively complete for a simple stats tool. However, it does not specify the response format or structure, which may be needed for an agent to parse results effectively.

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 are zero parameters, so no additional parameter description is needed. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining the scope ('Global REG-Vault catalogue stats') and categories returned.

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 it provides 'Global REG-Vault catalogue stats' and lists three specific coverage areas: total games, systems, assets coverage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_game (single game) and list_systems (list systems).

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 for getting aggregate stats, but does not explicitly say when to use it vs siblings or when not to use it. It gives no alternatives or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description shares the burden. It mentions 'List' (read-only) and 'with game counts' (additional data), but doesn't disclose rate limits, pagination, or auth needs. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and adds essential context (REG-Vault, game counts).

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and its scope. Missing details like pagination or ordering are minor.

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 input schema has no parameters and is 100% covered (since it's empty). The description adds value by explaining what data is returned (systems with game counts), which goes beyond the empty 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 verb 'List', the resource 'retro-gaming systems', and the scope 'in REG-Vault with game counts'. It distinguishes itself from siblings which are about individual games, letter counts, stats, or 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?

The description implies this tool is for a broad listing, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like search_games (which may filter). However, the sibling names suggest distinct use cases.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions case-insensitive search and returning up to `limit` results, but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, sorting, or what happens if no results. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded, with a single sentence that conveys core purpose. Efficient, but could be slightly more informative without being verbose.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It explains the search scope and result limits, but lacks info on return format, sorting, or error cases. Adequate for a simple search 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 coverage is 67% with two parameters described (query and system have descriptions, limit has default but no description). The description adds 'across one or all systems' context and mentions `limit`, but does not elaborate on syntax or format beyond 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 tool searches games by title across one or all systems and returns results up to `limit`. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_game or list_systems, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 usage for searching by title, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_game (which likely fetches a single game) or list_systems. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are stated.

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