List my games

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

Annotations already establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it includes drafts and delisted entries, sorts newest first, and signals that the output contains id and slug values. It stops short of describing full response structure or pagination, but the annotations lower the burden.

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, no filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded ('whole catalogue, newest first'), followed by inclusion caveats and a concrete purpose. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with no required parameters and fully documented inputs, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (game identifiers), when to use it, and how it differs from search; the annotations confirm it is safe.

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 documentation covers both parameters completely (limit range and includeUnpublished semantics). The description reinforces that the tool returns identifiers, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description names a specific action and resource: list the user's whole catalogue. It adds concrete scope ('including drafts and delisted entries that never appear in search') and states the ordering ('newest first'), which clearly distinguishes it from search_games and get_game.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use it to find the id or slug you need for the other tools.' It also implies when not to rely on search, since hidden entries 'never appear in search.' It does not explicitly name an alternative for public-only or keyword-driven lookups, but enough context is provided.

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