game_info

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists content categories and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what inputs are required, how actions affect the response, or any limits. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 extremely brief, which is concise, but it is an under-specified fragment rather than a well-structured explanation. It conveys only a list of topics and does not earn its place by improving usability. The lack of sentences or meaningful detail makes this closer to under-specification than true conciseness.

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 five parameters, one required, two enums, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only seven words. There is no explanation of action semantics, parameter combinations, or return behavior. This is far too little context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for the five undocumented parameters. It does not explain name, appid, count, or filter at all; it only repeats the action categories already present in the schema enum. No parameter meaning, optionality, or interaction is clarified.

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 the content areas the tool covers (reviews, news, media, HLTB times, PCGamingWiki fixes), which indicates the general resource domain. However, it lacks a verb such as 'fetch' or 'retrieve,' so it reads as a fragment rather than a clear statement of what the tool does. It also does little to distinguish this tool from siblings like games or insights.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many siblings. The action enum and title imply it is for game information lookups, but the description never states a preferred context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema.

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