Listar jogos

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (in-progress games plus per-game progress) and is implicitly a read-only operation, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether completed games appear.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the scope. It is efficient, though extremely terse relative to the other sibling tools' likely scope.

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 and no annotations, the description covers what is listed and what each entry contains. Only ordering/pagination and the treatment of finished games remain unstated, which are minor.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate in the schema, and it correctly avoids inventing options.

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 ("Lista") and resource ("jogos") with a scope qualifier ("em andamento") and the content returned ("progresso de cada um"). It is easy to tell apart from criar_jogo or status_jogo by implication, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the read-side listing of games, and "em andamento" hints that finished games are excluded. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to status_jogo for inspecting a single game.

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