list_games

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole behavioral burden. It discloses that results come from a cache and are ordered newest-first, and that the opening filter is a case-insensitive substring match. It does not say whether the cache can be stale, how n interacts with 'newest first', or what an empty result means.

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 scope, ordering and the get_game linkage; filters follow in a single compact line. The long return-field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists, though it could be trimmed to the fields an agent actually needs to pick a game_id.

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?

Without an output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape and filter semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. Gaps remain around n (pagination/limit behavior) and cache freshness relative to sync_games, which matter for a data-retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: time_class, color, result (explicitly framed as from the player's side) and opening are all given value semantics and allowed values. The required username is only implied via 'the player's', and n is never mentioned at all.

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 (list the player's cached games), gives ordering (newest first), and states its downstream purpose (to find a game_id for get_game). The word 'cached' implicitly separates it from sync_games, and 'find a game_id' separates it from get_game itself.

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 use case: call this to obtain a game_id before calling get_game, and lists filter dimensions with accepted values. It does not say what to do when the cache is empty or stale (presumably sync_games), so the exclusion/alternative guidance is incomplete.

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