detect_game

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior detail by listing the registry/location sources it probes, but says nothing about what happens when nothing is found, whether validation errors are raised, or how expensive a full scan is.

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?

Two tight sentences with the default behavior front-loaded and the narrowing parameter immediately after. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a tool whose schema is completely undocumented, leaving one of two parameters unexplained is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains game_dir (validate one install) and leaves include_paths entirely undefined—an agent cannot tell whether it is extra search roots, paths to skip, or output formatting. Half the parameters remain opaque.

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 names a specific verb (detect) and resource (Beat Saber installations and their versions), and enumerates the sources scanned (Steam, Oculus, BS Manager, BEATSABER_DIR). This clearly separates it from siblings like set_game_directory or game_process_status without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

It distinguishes two modes of use: default detection of all installs versus passing game_dir to validate one specific install. That gives clear context for when each mode applies, though it does not name an alternative tool or state any exclusions (e.g., when to prefer set_game_directory).

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