nexus_games

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, destructive=false and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — pagination is performed locally rather than server-side — which is useful, but it says nothing about filtering behavior, result size, or ordering.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded before the pagination note. Nothing extraneous, though the compression leaves real gaps.

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 parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no enum hints, the definition leaves the agent guessing about query semantics, default page size, and result shape. Annotations cover mutations/safety, but the retrieval contract is under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0% for three parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. 'Paginated locally' gestures at limit/offset, but the 'query' parameter's matching semantics (what fields it searches, substring vs exact) are never explained anywhere.

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 ('Find') and resource ('Nexus game domains') with a scope qualifier ('documented legacy games catalogue'), so the agent knows this is a lookup against a fixed catalogue. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling vortex_games, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus vortex_games or the other nexus_* catalogue tools. 'Paginated locally' hints at a retrieval pattern but never states a use case, prerequisite, or exclusion.

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