waitlist_games_v1_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals the authentication requirement (OAuth token or env vars) and points to an external guide resource for full details. However, it does not describe response format, pagination, error behavior, or side effects beyond the implied read-only nature of GET.

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, front-loaded with the endpoint, and conveys essential auth info in two sentences. It is appropriately sized for a simple GET endpoint, though the Chinese text is somewhat dense and could be more structured for quick scanning.

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 straightforward list endpoint, the description is adequate: it identifies the resource, auth requirements, and points to a guide for full instructions. However, it lacks details about expected response structure, possible query parameters, or error scenarios, which would be important for an agent without prior knowledge. The lack of an output schema increases the need for such information.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with generic descriptions for body, query, headers, and pathParams, plus a detailed description for oauthToken. The description adds minimal value by stating 'no additional required parameters' and reaffirming the oauthToken/env var fallback, but it does not explain specific query parameters or their meanings.

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 identifies the tool as a GET request to /waitlist/games/v1 for 'Games in Waitlist', specifying both the HTTP verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like waitlist_games_v1_put and waitlist_games_v1_delete by implying a read-only operation.

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 notes that no additional required parameters exist and mentions the OAuth token prerequisite, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., notifications_waitlist_v1_get or waitlist_games_v1_put). There is no exclusions or scenario-based direction.

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