epic_list_games

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining the cache-warming latency on first call, persistent cache behavior, that only one page is returned, and the local Legendary/Heroic state source for installed_only. It does not mention authentication prerequisites or error behavior, but it is otherwise strong.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence functional summary, a brief performance note, and a clean Args block. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or 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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: output fields, pagination, caching, and filtering semantics. It does not describe the exact page response envelope or authentication state assumptions, but it is close to complete for a read/list 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%, so all parameter meaning must come from the description. It fully compensates: installed_only is tied to local game installation state, search is a case-insensitive substring on title, include_dlcs explains DLC exclusion by default, and limit/offset are given explicit pagination 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List owned Epic games', then enumerates the exact output fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like epic_get_game_details (single-game details) and steam_list_games (Steam library).

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 tool's purpose—listing the user's owned Epic games—is clearly stated, and pagination behavior is explained. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions like 'use igdb_search_games for metadata', but the resource-specific scope gives adequate context. The lack of explicit when-not guidance keeps it from a 5.

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