get_game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, error handling (e.g., if the game doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get full details') and specifies key inclusions ('categories and YAML config') without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves detailed game information. It doesn't explain what 'full details' entail beyond categories and YAML config, nor does it address behavioral aspects like error cases or response structure. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with both parameters ('id' and 'slug') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that one of these identifiers is needed to fetch game details. Since the schema already provides full coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific game'), specifying what information is retrieved ('including categories and YAML config'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_games' (which lists multiple games) and 'search_service_games' (which searches external services). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_library_stats' or 'update_game', keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a game ID or slug), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_games' for browsing or 'update_game' for modifications. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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