proton

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 merely lists action names without stating side effects, whether operations read or mutate data, prerequisites, expected outputs, or rate limits. Actions like 'prefix' or 'recommend' are especially ambiguous.

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, compact line that front-loads the domain and then lists the available sub-actions. It is efficient and scannable, though the brevity comes at the cost of explanatory depth.

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 multi-action tool with seven possible actions, three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. A one-line list of action names leaves the agent without critical information about required parameters per action, return formats, failure modes, or behavioral consequences, making it effectively incomplete.

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, but it does not explain appid, lines, or the exact meaning of most action values. It only echoes the enum names already present in the schema, adding no semantic value for an agent trying to construct a valid call.

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 identifies the domain ('Proton/Wine compat') and enumerates the tool's capabilities (list games, info, versions, DB rating, recommend, prefix, logs), which aligns with the action enum. It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like games or game_info, though it reads as a label rather than a complete sentence.

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, nor does it explain which action fits which scenario. Sibling tools like game_info, game_control, or diagnostics could plausibly overlap, but no context is given to help an agent choose.

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