igdb_list_genres

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the implicit claim that this returns the complete genre set ('all'), with no mention of result size, caching, or rate limits on the IGDB API.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description could stand on annotations for safety, but it leaves the credential parameters completely unexplained. That is the one piece of information an agent actually needs and it is absent.

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% and the two parameters (client_id, client_secret) are undocumented in both the schema and the description. An agent gets no signal that these are IGDB credential strings, how to obtain them, or what happens if they are omitted — a meaningful gap for an authentication-bearing tool.

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 and resource ('List all game genres') plus the data source ('from IGDB'), which is enough for an agent to identify it. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby igdb_list_platforms sibling, but the resource noun does that implicitly.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus igdb_search_games, igdb_get_game, or rawg_list_genres, and no guidance on prerequisites. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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