game_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists mutating and potentially destructive actions like uninstall and move but gives no warnings, prerequisites, side effects, or reversibility information, leaving the safety profile unknown.

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 with no filler, and the action list is front-loaded. It could be improved by structuring it as 'Control a game: ...', but it is appropriately brief.

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?

For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description omits safety context, return behavior, and operation details. An agent cannot tell what happens after launch or verify, and destructive operations are unmarked, making the description insufficient for safe invocation.

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 0%, yet the description merely restates the enum values in prose, adding no meaning beyond the input schema. 'verify' and 'move' remain underspecified, appid is not explained, and the missing destination parameter for move is not addressed.

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 lists concrete operations (install, uninstall, launch, verify, move, open store page) that clearly imply a game-control tool, distinguishing it from siblings like games or library. It loses a point because the resource is never explicitly named, and 'move' is ambiguous without a destination.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings, no context or exclusion criteria. With 13 sibling tools, the agent must infer which operation to route here, which the description does not help with.

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