list_games

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the return structure and scope (owned by authenticated developer), but does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only and safe. However, the context implies a safe list operation, and the description adds value beyond the name. A minor gap in explicitly stating safety attributes prevents a perfect score.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence serves a purpose. No wasted words, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what it does, what it returns (id, slug, name, createdAt), and provides usage context and alternatives. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as per guidelines.

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 that the tool lists all games owned by the authenticated developer, and distinguishes itself from siblings by suggesting an alternative tool (bootstrap_leaderboard) for a specific scenario. The verb 'list' and resource 'games' are specific and unambiguous.

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 states to use this first for orientation before creating or inspecting resources, and provides a conditional guideline: if the result is empty and the developer wants to add a leaderboard, to call bootstrap_leaderboard. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance.

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