List games

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that it returns running and exited games along with handles and status. It also clarifies the session scope. No contradictions with annotations, and the behavior is well-explained for a read-only list tool.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fully complete: it details what is listed (launched games, running/exited), the session scope, and the information provided (handles, status). No additional context is needed.

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 only parameter (response_format) is fully documented in the schema with enum values and descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not need to add more, as the baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema already covers it adequately.

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 specifically states 'List all launched games this session, running and exited, with their handles and status.' It clearly identifies the verb (list), resource (launched games), scope (this session), and output details (handles, status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like godot_run or godot_game_logs.

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 context for when to use the tool ('list all launched games this session') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. While the sibling list includes related tools, no direct comparison or exclusion is given.

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