list_collection_game_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so reasonably: 'Read-only', 'Does not save', and 'Requires login' disclose the safety profile and an auth requirement. It omits rate limits, pagination, and return-shape behavior, but the core mutation/auth traits are covered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only scope and followed by the save and auth caveats. Every clause carries information, though the enumeration of returned items is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only/auth context is present. But with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves meaningful gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains what 'slug' identifies, what 'wait_ms' (default 3000) controls, or what 'collection_id' (default empty) scopes. An agent gets no meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 specific verb and resource ('read-only dump of copies, extra-platform plus button, progress widgets, ratings, and reviews for a collection game'), giving the agent a concrete picture of what is returned. It implicitly contrasts with the many set_* mutation siblings by declaring itself read-only, though it never names an alternative 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?

'Requires login' states a prerequisite, and 'read-only' implies a safe inspection use case. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_collection_content_menus, list_related_content, or the individual set_* tools, leaving routing to inference.

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