Get your log for a game

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds value by revealing exactly what data is included (shelf, rating, like state, playtime, playthrough details), which helps the agent set expectations. It does not contradict annotations, and no further behavioral caveats are necessary for this simple read operation.

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 a single sentence that packs all essential information without any fluff. It immediately states what the tool does and what the response contains. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose.

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 only one parameter, a high-quality schema, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the return value contains (the full log components), which is the main missing piece since no output schema is available. The description fully covers the tool's behavioral contract.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'game' parameter, including a detailed description of accepted formats (title, slug, or ID). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning because the schema already fully explains it. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Your complete log for one game,' and enumerates the specific content (shelf, rating, like state, playtime, every playthrough with review and dates). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_play_sessions (which focuses only on sessions) and get_game (which may be metadata only).

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 phrase 'complete log for one game' implicitly suggests using this when you need a comprehensive view of a single game's log, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_play_sessions or get_game_logs. There is no mention of exclusions or specific scenarios, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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