Get Game (v1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the return contents; it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or side effects. Given the annotations, the description is adequate but adds little extra behavioral detail.

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 fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage tip is concise. Every word adds value.

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 tool, the description covers the input source (list_games) and the output fields. Without an output schema, it adequately describes the return structure. However, it does not clarify the effect of show_categories on the output, which is a minor gap given the boolean parameter.

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 50% (only 'game' has a description). The description repeats the game parameter's purpose but does not explain 'show_categories', which has no schema description. The description mentions categories in the output but does not link it to the parameter, leaving the agent to guess how show_categories affects the result.

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 returns game details by domain name, listing specific fields (id, name, counts, categories). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mod (mods) and list_games (discovery) by its resource and scope. The verb 'get' and resource 'game' are explicit.

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 instructs using list_games to discover domain names, establishing a clear prerequisite flow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know this tool is for fetching details of a single game once the domain is known.

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