list_game_ops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the return object's top-level keys (queries, commands, events), the per-entry fields, and the schema-lite hint format (e.g. {lane: "int", count: "int?"}). It does not mention cost, caching, or whether the registry can change mid-session, so a small gap remains.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then return contract, then the call-order guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the most actionable instruction ('call this first') is retained.

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?

With no output schema and zero params, the description must explain what comes back, and it does so at the right level of detail (top-level keys, entry fields, hint syntax) while also positioning the tool in the discovery workflow. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; baseline is 4. The description's param-like detail pertains to returned payload shapes, which is useful but not input semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List game-specific custom operations registered by the running game') and goes further by describing the exact return shape. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling listers like list_fonts, list_screens, and list_active_programmables, and it names its natural follow-up tools.

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?

Explicitly says to call this first to discover what the game exposes, then routes to game_op for invoking queries/commands or get_game_events for polling events. This is a complete when-to-use plus alternatives statement with nothing left to inference.

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