list_games

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates this is a read-only inspection tool that returns available games, action grammar, active tables, and open seats, which is sufficient for a simple listing operation. It does not detail internal state changes, but 'list' strongly implies no side effects.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence that covers the tool's purpose and output without redundancy. Every element earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, simple listing tool, the description gives enough context: it enumerates the key categories of returned information. It could be slightly more specific about what 'action grammar' means, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity and absence of an output schema.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly focuses on output content rather than inputs.

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 the specific verb 'List' and resource ('available games', 'active tables', 'open seats'), with an added detail about action grammar. The phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like act, join, and observe, which are actions rather than discovery.

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?

The description implies this is the tool for discovering what games and tables exist before joining or observing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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