list_related_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — it expands each tab before scraping, implying browser interaction and delay — but says nothing about required session state, whether it navigates or acts on the current page, or side effects.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the expansion behavior. Almost no waste, though the enumeration is verbose given the schema lists nothing.

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. However, for a browser-driven tool it omits necessary context: whether the agent must already be on the game page, and what wait_ms controls. Adequate but with clear gaps for a scraping 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 description coverage is 0% with two parameters. The description never mentions game_slug or wait_ms; 'expands each tab before scraping' hints at a timing/delay concern but does not explain wait_ms's role or units. The schema gap is left uncompensated.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (related games & content tabs on a game page) and enumerates the concrete section types covered: editions, DLC, packs, add-ons, remakes, bundles. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_collection_content_menus or get_page_text without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'on a game page' implies the context in which to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. list_collection_content_menus, get_links) and no stated prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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