game_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description complements this by disclosing what content is reported (paths, version, mod count, draft folder, log presence), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it adds nothing about scope, cost, or freshness of the data.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most important item (game paths) is front-loaded. It reads as a fragment rather than a statement of purpose, which slightly hurts scannability from a tool-selection standpoint.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does list the returned fields. It remains under-specified for ambiguous items ('draft folder and log presence', the WS_GAME_DIR token) and omits usage context, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments and instead uses the space to describe outputs.

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 enumerates the environment facts the tool surfaces (game paths, engine version, cached mod count, draft folder, log presence), which goes beyond merely restating the name. However, it is a noun-phrase field list with no verb framing and no differentiation from adjacent tools such as snapshot_game, diff_game_versions, or list_mods, leaving the agent to infer that this is a read-only environment inspection call.

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 statement of when to call this rather than a sibling, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. An agent must guess whether it needs a workspace/project context or whether snapshot_game overlaps. Nothing in the text routes the caller.

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