Analyze a game project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful context by stating 'runs nothing, no login' and that the result names the next step. It doesn't detail output structure, but that is covered by the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action before the enumerated detection list, and every item conveys a distinct capability. It is dense and long for a single sentence, but no clause is wasted.

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 a single fully-documented parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it inspects, that it is safe, when to call it, and what comes next.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'dir'. The description adds no further meaning about path resolution or edge cases, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Inspects') and resource ('a local game folder') and then enumerates exactly what it detects: engine, build command, output dir, entry html, SDK usage, policy problems, storage keys, size, and permissions. This is precise enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like gamealia_check_integration or gamealia_build.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call it first on an existing game', gives the alternative for the no-game case (gamealia_create_project), and names the typical follow-up (gamealia_integrate_sdk). Both the when-to-use and the sibling routing are covered.

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