Send-arcade List Games

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description claims 'operation class write' which directly contradicts the read-only intent. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the contradictory statement.

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 first sentence is concise, but the following sentences introduce irrelevant warnings about writes and SAP context, bloating the description without earning their place for a list tool.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but includes misleading write warnings and omits clarity on parameter usage or return format. Output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description could be more coherent.

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 covers the single parameter (status) with 100% description coverage via enum values. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so baseline 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 states 'List available games on Send Arcade' which clearly identifies the action. However, it also includes unrelated SAP MCP context warnings that slightly obscure the core purpose.

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 mentions 'Use for Send Arcade game listing and play flows' but provides no distinction from the sibling tool send-arcade_playGame. It gives warnings about writes that are irrelevant to this read-only tool, offering no practical when-to-use guidance.

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