browse_games

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('Use cursor to get next page') which is valuable, but doesn't mention other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, or what format the results come in. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first establishes the core function, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 no parameters (simple input), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains the browsing behavior and pagination, but doesn't describe what 'games' means in this context, what data is returned, or how results are structured. For a tool with zero structured metadata, more completeness would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4 even with no parameter information in the description. However, the description actually adds value by explaining the implicit behavior: 'Use empty query for browse all games' clarifies that browsing happens without parameters, and 'Use cursor to get next page' explains pagination mechanics beyond what the empty schema indicates.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Browse games') which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_games' (which doesn't exist in the list) or 'game_lives' (which might show live games). It's somewhat vague about what 'browse' entails compared to search 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?

The description provides clear context for usage: 'Use empty query for browse all games' indicates when to use this tool (for browsing without specific search criteria) and 'Use cursor to get next page' explains pagination behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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