yagames-status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful requirement 'Requires auth env vars' and the verb 'Check' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, describe error behavior, or mention any rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 leads with the action and subject, then lists the relevant statuses and the auth requirement. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the caller can expect in return. It lists the possible statuses but does not state the response format (e.g., a simple string versus a structured object), nor does it cover error cases like an unknown appId. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks full contextual detail.

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%, so the input schema already documents 'appId' as 'Game ID'. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the term 'game', which is consistent with the schema. Thus the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('current status of a game') and enumerates the possible status values. It is unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like yagames-search, yagames-upload-build, and yagames-publish, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to know a game's lifecycle status. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the decision to inference rather than clear routing guidance.

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