game_commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — registration is runtime-driven and the list in play mode can differ from edit mode. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait an agent needs. It stops short of noting whether results are cached or how staleness is handled, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope and the returned fields, the second flags the play-mode caveat. Front-loaded with the core definition and no 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?

With zero parameters, a readOnly annotation, and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to explain scope and the mode caveat — both are present. The one omission is its relationship to the `game_command` sibling, which would complete the discover-then-invoke picture.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, which is appropriate.

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 ('Lists') and a precisely scoped resource ('the commands the game registered with the bridge'), even naming the registration API. An agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling `game_command`, leaving the listing-vs-invoking distinction implicit.

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: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before calling a command. But there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no pointer to the `game_command` sibling that would be the natural next step. Nothing is misleading, but the routing guidance is left to inference.

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