list_game_passes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly signals that the tool is read-only (list operation) and states the output fields. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the response is ordered. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not enriched beyond the obvious.

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?

The description is two sentences: first clearly states the purpose and output, second explains when to use it. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and result, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (all with schema descriptions), no output schema, and moderate complexity (pagination), the description covers the purpose, output fields, and a key use case. It lacks details on pagination mechanics or result ordering, but for a straightforward listing tool, it is reasonably 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?

Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional context for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (universeId as the game identifier, pageToken and maxPageSize for pagination). It does not explain how pagination works or the format expected for universeId.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'game passes', and the context 'for a Roblox universe (game)'. It also enumerates the returned fields (ID, name, price, description, on-sale status), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_game_pass (single item) or update_game_pass (mutation).

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 states when to use this tool: 'to see a game's game passes or to find an ID before updating one'. It does not provide negative guidance (when not to use) or explicitly compare with siblings like list_developer_products, but the context is sufficient for an agent to make a correct selection.

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