list_games

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool lists available games, which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that it has no side effects or describe the format of the returned list. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable and easy to understand.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple list operation, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does without requiring an output schema. A minor gap is the lack of detail about what fields are returned for each game, but the core purpose is fully covered.

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 confirms this. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It adds no confusion and adequately supports the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'text-adventure games available to play,' which precisely identifies the tool's function. It is immediately distinct from siblings like start_game, act, hint, and score, which are action-oriented rather than listing games.

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 the tool is used to discover available games, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., 'use this before starting a game'). The use case is easy to infer, but the description does not provide explicit guidance.

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