Status do jogo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what is returned (checklist, per-stage gaps, next step), which implies a read-only operation, but never states that it is non-mutating, nor how errors or missing games are handled.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary output (the stage checklist) followed by the two value-adding details (gaps and next step). No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, read-only-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential return content an agent needs to decide relevance. It only misses edge cases like invalid or nonexistent game identifiers.

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% and the single 'jogo' parameter is documented as name or slug in the schema. The description implies the whole tool is scoped to one game but adds no format or lookup semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Mostra o checklist de etapas do jogo') plus the scope of what it reveals (gaps per stage, next step), which is more specific than a bare status label. It implicitly separates itself from listar_etapas/guia_etapa by framing output as progress rather than a plain listing, but names no sibling 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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative such as listar_etapas or guia_etapa. The agent must infer that this is the progress-checking tool from the described output alone.

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