get_user_games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds semantic context about what data each list contains (progress = per-game counts + award, completed = 100%), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination, the default user, or result size limits.

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 terse sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the options; nothing is wasted. It is slightly cryptic (relies on list-noun vocabulary without a verb) but efficient.

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 an 8-parameter tool with 38% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers only the primary enum semantics. Pagination behavior, filtering dimensions, and the user/console scoping are left entirely to the schema, leaving real gaps.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate more than it does. It usefully clarifies the meanings of the required 'list' enum values, but the other seven parameters (limit, offset, images, console_id, user default) get no added meaning beyond the 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 names the resource precisely ('User's game lists') and enumerates the four list types, so an agent knows this is a list-retrieval tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_user_game_progress, which likely overlaps with the 'progress' list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_user_game_progress or get_user_unlocks, despite obvious overlap. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing are stated.

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