games

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the action names. It does not state whether operations are read-only, what 'random pick' selects from, how 'compare' behaves with appid/appid2, or what the response looks like. The schema enum already conveys the action set, so the description adds almost nothing beyond structured data.

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 single sentence contains no wasted words and front-loads the six actions efficiently. However, the brevity comes at the expense of essential guidance, making this under-specification rather than genuine conciseness for an 11-parameter tool.

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?

This is a complex multi-action tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description offers only an action list. An agent cannot determine which parameters pair with which action, how pagination works, what filter values are valid, or what the return shape is. The description is drastically inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate heavily. It does not: none of appid, limit, query, filter, offset, search, sort_by, sort_order, or include_store are explained, and the ambiguous query-vs-search and appid-vs-appid2 distinctions are left unresolved. The description only maps to the action enum, which the schema already provides.

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 specific verbs (list, get, search, compare, random pick, find unplayed) applied to the resource 'games', so an agent knows roughly what operations exist. However, it is a bundle of six operations and does not differentiate from overlapping siblings like library (likely also lists games) or game_info (likely also gets game details).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 13 siblings. No alternatives are named, no exclusions are stated, and no context is given for choosing between overlapping tools like library, game_info, or insights. An agent must infer all routing decisions.

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