nexus_get_game

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the return contents, including the 'categories' list and its fields. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and scope, and the second block explains the return format. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, so every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, key return fields, and category structure. The only notable gap is the lack of any guidance distinguishing this tool from the similarly named nexus_get_game_v2, which could matter for correct selection.

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 100%, and the only parameter, domain_name, is already well documented with format guidance, examples, and a warning against display names. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because the schema fully carries that burden.

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 verb and resource: 'Get details for one game' and enumerates what is included (stats, file counts, download counts, categories). It differentiates itself from plural siblings like nexus_get_games by emphasizing 'one game,' but it does not distinguish itself from nexus_get_game_v2, which appears to serve the same singular purpose.

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. The phrase 'for one game' implies it is for a single game rather than a list, but the description never names sibling tools like nexus_get_games or nexus_get_game_v2, nor explains trade-offs. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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