List my games

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description only adds 'needs login', which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It also discloses that all games are returned with no filtering/pagination, but says nothing about error behavior or what happens with an expired session.

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 and account scope, then the returned fields, then usage routing; every clause carries information an agent needs. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the return fields, and it flags the login prerequisite. Only minor gaps remain (no mention of ordering, empty-account behavior, or pagination limits) for what is otherwise a simple zero-parameter read tool.

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 does not waste space inventing parameter detail, instead spending its words on scope and return values.

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 and resource ('Lists every game of the active developer account') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (slug, title, status, live version id, cover/thumbnail URLs), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gamealia_get_status and gamealia_list_versions, which the description explicitly delegates to.

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?

Gives two concrete when-to-use cases ('find the slug the other tools take', 'check that a game exists before gamealia_create_game') and names the alternative for a different need ('for one game's versions and review state use gamealia_get_status'). This is explicit routing, not implied guidance.

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