List games

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety bar is met. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the unfiltered catalogue has 2000+ entries, which warns the agent about result volume. It stops short of describing pagination or return shape, but the added signal is meaningful.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste; the core action, the required-filter rule, and the workflow position are all front-loaded in that order.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the purpose, the filtering mandate, and the 'resolve a domain' framing that implies what the caller needs from the result. Return-field detail is lightly implied rather than stated, a minor gap for a list tool with read-only annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the filter semantics (case-insensitive, name or domain) already in the schema and adds the rationale for using it, but contributes no syntax or format detail beyond structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the games supported by Nexus Mods'), immediately distinguishable from the singular sibling nexus_get_game. An agent knows this is the catalogue-enumeration tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in the workflow ('Use it to resolve a game domain before any other tool') and gives a hard operational rule ('Always pass filter'). This is prescriptive when-and-how guidance, not implied usage.

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