analysis_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reports counts over cached games only and distinguishes analysed from pending, which is useful, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or what the return values look like.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the metric immediately and is appropriately sized for a simple status tool.

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 simple one-parameter query with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys what is counted. However, without an output schema, it should ideally clarify the return shape or explicitly state that it does not trigger analysis.

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 the single username parameter. The description adds only that the username identifies a player, but does not specify format, case sensitivity, or any other semantic detail beyond the schema's property title.

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 a specific metric: counts of a player's cached games that are analysed versus pending. It is distinct from siblings like analyze_games or sync_games, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives or clarify the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied as a status-checking query, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_games, analyze_games, or sync_games. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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