inspect_game

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety bar is low, yet the description still contributes a return-shape sketch ({ok, engine, main_exe, il2cpp/mono/ue key paths}) plus the scope constraint that it inspects one directory rather than the machine. It omits cost/performance expectations and what happens on an unrecognized or invalid directory.

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 purpose, then a short usage note, then structured Args/Returns. The middle sentence about not scanning the whole machine is slightly rambling but earns its place as a scoping rule; nothing else is filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only probe with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and an inline summary of return keys, which substitutes adequately for the absent output schema. A brief note on failure modes (non-game directory, missing exe) would close the remaining gap.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage (only the bare title 'Game Dir'), so the description must carry the semantics. It does clarify game_dir as the 游戏安装目录 (game installation directory) rather than any arbitrary folder or process name, but that is the minimum needed and no format, path style, or read-permission constraints are given.

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+resource (探测一个游戏目录) and enumerates the concrete outputs: engine identification, main executable, and key files. That makes it clearly distinguishable from neighbors like inspect_binary, detect_ue, and ue_profile, which operate on binaries or specific engine families rather than a whole install directory.

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 frames the usage as 'one game project directory at a time' and tells the agent not to enumerate all games on the machine, with the action being 'just pass the directory in'. It gives an operative condition but never names an alternative tool (e.g. detect_ue or inspect_binary) for deeper or engine-specific follow-up.

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