Recently played

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about account scope and sort order, but it does not disclose behavior such as how the limit parameter applies or what happens if the account has no recent activity. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and ordering information. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the resource, account scope, and sort order. The only notable omission is any mention of the limit parameter, though the schema fully documents it with defaults and constraints.

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%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the 'limit' parameter. It does not mention the limit at all. The parameter name and constraints (default 20, min 1, max 50) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the resource: the account's most recently launched games, and even specifies ordering ('newest first'). It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the meaning is unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by the recency filter.

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 should be used when the agent needs the account's recently played or launched games. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like psn_library or psn_owned_games, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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