List a game's achievements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description correctly confirms this is a safe read without contradiction. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by explaining the significance of `unlockCount` and how to use it to identify an unreachable badge, which is not present in any structured field.

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 sentences with no wasted words, but the second sentence is dense with both a usage instruction and a data-analysis hint. It front-loads the purpose and return fields, which is good, though the sentence could be split for readability. Still, it earns its length.

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, the description fully enumerates all returned fields and provides a practical use case for the `unlockCount` field. For a simple one-parameter read tool, this is complete. The agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 schema has 100% coverage of the single `game` parameter, providing a clear description of slug or id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but given the complete schema, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists achievements defined on a game, enumerating the exact fields returned (slug, name, description, emoji, points, hidden, unlockCount). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like define_achievement or update_achievement by framing it as a read operation on the existing badge set.

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 explicitly advises reading this before touching a game's badge set, implying it is a prerequisite for any modification tool. However, it doesn't name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent. The context is clear enough for most cases.

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