game_maintenance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (no auto-fetch), local limits (100 rows/256 KiB), truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. It also notes that filtering semantics are not fully established, which is honest about limitations. This is exemplary transparency.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then enumerating limitations. It is longer than ideal but each sentence adds value about behavior, limits, or semantics. No fluff; it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 is simple with 2 optional params and no output schema. The description covers most operational details: pagination, limits, truncation, refusal. It does not describe the shape of the output or how maintenance windows are structured, but given the lack of output schema, some additional detail on return format would help. Still, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions start_date and end_date are forwarded but does not describe format or requiredness beyond schema. It provides some context on date bounds being forwarded but not enough to fully document the parameters. Baseline for low coverage is higher, but description falls short of full compensation.

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 clearly states the tool reads maintenance windows and window_buffer_ms, which is a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like game_settings, which may also cover maintenance-related data. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 explicit notes on behavior (no auto-pagination, limits, truncation reporting) and clarifies that filter effectiveness is not implied. It does not name alternative tools for when to use this instead, but the context of reading maintenance windows is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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