list_play_sessions

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotence, and non-destructiveness. The description adds useful context beyond those by clarifying that results are bounded summaries and that device/sync internals are deliberately omitted, which helps set caller expectations about the response shape and scope.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every phrase adds meaning: 'bounded', 'summaries', 'for the token owner', and 'without device/sync internals' all contribute without redundancy.

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 low complexity, robust annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could add an explicit note about when to prefer this tool over others, but that is not strongly needed here since no sibling play-session tool exists.

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 for the undocumented limit and offset parameters. It only hints at boundedness without explaining how limit/offset control pagination or what values are expected, leaving the agent with minimal semantic guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('bounded play-session summaries'), and a precise scope ('for the token owner'). It also explicitly excludes 'device/sync internals', which differentiates it from lower-level data tools and makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for the token owner' gives clear context about whose data this returns, and 'without device/sync internals' acts as an implicit exclusion if internal details are needed. There are no direct sibling play-session tools, so explicit alternative routing is less necessary.

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