Get user's recently played games

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that the output includes timestamps and progress, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Since the schema already covers basic input constraints, the description adds moderate 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?

Description is a single, well-constructed sentence that directly conveys the purpose. No redundant information; every word serves a clear function. Front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides necessary context about the returned data (timestamps and progress). However, it does not explain the offset parameter at all, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is mostly complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 67% (username and count have descriptions; offset lacks one). The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; it focuses on output details. For the missing offset description, there is no compensation. Baseline 3 is appropriate given coverage but incomplete for offset.

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?

Description clearly states 'List of games the user has touched most recently, with last-played timestamps and per-game progress.' The verb 'list' and resource 'games' specify the action and object, and the scope 'recently played' distinguishes it from other user-related tools like ra_user_achievements or ra_user_summary.

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 implies usage for retrieving recently played games but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ra_user_completion_progress for full game lists, or when not to use it (e.g., if offline). No usage exclusions or contextual hints are given.

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