Show game data availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by explaining what the tool reports (counts and sync dates) and what to do for missing datasets. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but as a read-only status reporter, the absence of such disclosures is not a significant gap.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('Report which game data sets are synced') and adds the needed usage context. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it identifies what data sets are covered, what metrics are provided (counts and dates), and how to react if data is missing. It could optionally mention the underlying data source, but this is not essential for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, making this score appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource: which game data sets are synced (file/FileDataID index and texture atlas index). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on sync status rather than searching or file operations, and the phrasing 'Use this when a game data lookup returns nothing' further differentiates it.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when a game data lookup returns nothing.' However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, though the 'what to run for any that are missing' clause hints at next steps. This is clear but lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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