get_my_games

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it discloses that results are paginated and that authentication is required. This enhances the agent's understanding of usage constraints, though it could mention rate limits or error handling for a higher score.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause, followed by key behavioral details (pagination, prerequisites, authentication). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (list operation with pagination and authentication), no output schema, and rich annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and prerequisites, but could improve by detailing the return format (e.g., structure of name, ID, status) or error cases, which are not addressed.

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 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value: it reiterates that designer_id comes from 'get_my_designers' (already in the schema) and mentions pagination (implied by the page_number parameter). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not significantly enhance understanding.

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's purpose: 'List all games for a designer with name, ID, and status.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('games'), and scope ('for a designer'), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_game_catalog' or 'get_game_details', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Requires a designer_id from get_my_designers.' This indicates a prerequisite and guides the agent to use 'get_my_designers' first. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_game_catalog', so it falls short of a perfect score.

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