list_save_games

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral content: folders of .sav files are excluded from slots and surfaced separately, so an empty list is only meaningful when slot_folders is also empty. That edge case is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior worth disclosing; only the absence of ordering/scope details keeps it from 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the slot definition, the folder caveat, and the return shape in that order of importance. The Returns block is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema; the prose is slightly repetitive in restating "slot".

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape (user_index, save_directory, save_games fields, count, slot_folders) plus the semantic caveat about empty results, which is complete enough to call and interpret the tool. Minor ambiguity remains, e.g. whether count spans both collections.

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 100% and the schema already explains that user_index is optional, defaults to 0, and is a no-op on the generic desktop backend. The description adds only the phrase "for a given user index", so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all save games") plus scope ("for a given user index"), and defines what a slot is in the platform's save system. It never names the adjacent siblings (get_save_game_info, get_save_game_slot_info, does_save_game_exist), so an agent must infer the boundary itself, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named among the save-game siblings. Usage is only implied by the semantics: an agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point before calling per-slot tools, but nothing routes it there.

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