igdb_get_game_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses on-disk caching per id, the default exclusion of DLCs, and that force_refresh overwrites cached records. It does not mention potential rate limits or error behavior, but the key side effects and refresh semantics are clearly stated.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by caching behavior and an Args block. Every sentence adds useful information, and the formatting makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: purpose, parameter semantics, defaults, caching, and refresh behavior. It stops short of specifying the exact output shape or error handling, but the agent has enough to call it correctly for the common cases.

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%, yet the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining every parameter: ids come from specific sources with a max of 50, include_dlcs defaults to excluding DLCs, and force_refresh refetches and overwrites cache. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare property names and types in the 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 a specific verb and resource: it retrieves full text metadata for specific IGDB game ids, listing example fields like summary, ratings, genres, and companies. The reference to IGDB ids and sister tools in the Args section helps differentiate it from search and platform-specific detail tools.

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 when to use the tool by stating it is for specific IGDB ids obtained from igdb_search_games or igdb_lookup_by_steam_appid, and even gives an explicit use case for force_refresh when the prompt asks for latest ratings. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the source-tool references imply the workflow.

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