List open games

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return fields (id, source, story title, step count), which helps an agent plan. However, it says nothing about read-only guarantees beyond the implicit 'List', or about ordering, pagination, or the empty-list case.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the returned fields follow as useful detail. Every clause 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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields is the key missing piece and the description supplies it. Only the absence of any note on ordering or empty results keeps it from being fully 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose meaning the description would need to clarify, and it correctly adds no spurious parameter discussion.

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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with a precise resource ('currently open game sessions') and even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_journal or observe, but 'open game sessions' is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_journal or observe, nor any prerequisites (e.g., call it to discover game ids before load_state). Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'open', which does not rise to explicit when-to-use guidance.

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