List projects

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

The description clearly indicates a read-only operation (list) and specifies what is listed (games) and what is returned (universe ids). It does not disclose potential failure modes or processing time, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable. There are no annotations, but the description itself is fairly transparent.

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 concise and well-structured. It clearly states the action (List), the object (Roblox games), the context (on this account), the additional data (universe ids), and the intended use (to turn a game name into an id). No redundant or ambiguous language.

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?

The description provides enough context for the tool to be useful, including a specific use case. However, it does not mention error scenarios, such as when the account has no games or if linking is required, but given it is a simple list operationasi and the sibling tools suggest an ecosystem, this is acceptable.

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 is empty with no parameters, so there are no semantics to explain. The description correctly and fully covers the expected inputs (none). The tool has no parameters, so this dimension is trivially satisfied.

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 what the tool does: it lists Roblox games associated with the account accruals. It also explains the purpose of providing universe ids for turning game names into ids, which makes the intent unambiguous.

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 a specific use case: 'Use this to turn a game name the user said into an id.' It gives a direct instruction, which is helpful. However, it does not elaborate on when the user might say a game name, precedent steps, or error scenarios, which could be added for more completeness, but the core guidance is present.

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