List supported games

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses that not setting the gameTag causes a blocking engine-version GUI dialog later, and describes the tag format with an example (Roco Kingdom: World -> roco). This is valuable behavioral context beyond simply 'list games'.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds the parameter option and a critical workflow warning. Every word earns its place.

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?

This simple one-parameter tool is fully covered: purpose, parameter behavior, usage timing, a behavioral warning, and an example of output format. No output schema is needed, and the guidance is complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema already covers the 'tags' parameter with a description of true/false behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning by explaining that tags are 'usable with -game=/gameTag' and giving a concrete example, which goes beyond 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 'List games supported by umodel' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like umodel_list_objects by focusing on the game list, and further specifies the optional tags behavior.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Check this BEFORE any list/export/save call'. It also explains the downstream workflow: remember the gameTag via umodel_session_set to avoid the blocking dialog, which is a clear when-to-use instruction.

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