faceit_getAllGames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the endpoint, parameters (offset/limit for pagination), and that it returns a 'Games list.' However, it does not mention rate limits, ordering, or explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes the endpoint and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has 2 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, parameters, and return type ('Games list'). However, it lacks details about the structure of the returned games (e.g., fields like id, name), which would be helpful for a list endpoint. It is adequate but could be more complete.

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%, but the description manually lists parameters with types, defaults, and constraints (offset min 0, limit min 1 max 100), adding meaning beyond the schema. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could further explain pagination behavior.

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 states the tool retrieves details of all games on FACEIT and is used to enumerate supported games. It distinguishes itself from tools like faceit_getGame by emphasizing 'all games' and the role as a first step to discover game_id values.

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 explicitly says 'Use to enumerate every game supported on FACEIT' and notes it is 'Often the first step to discover valid game_id values for other tools.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention specific alternatives.

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