Get game status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not specify authentication requirements, performance characteristics, or side effects. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent of the tool's behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. 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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the output structure or distinguish clearly from similar user-specific metadata tools like ryot_get_user_metadata_details. The agent may need to infer the exact data returned.

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 only parameter, metadataId, is mentioned as the identifier for the game, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, the description lacks details on format or examples, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.

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 it retrieves user-specific game data (playing status, history, collections, reviews) by metadataId. This distinguishes it from siblings like ryot_get_metadata_details (general metadata) and ryot_get_movie_status. However, the list of data types is broad and could be more specific about what is returned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_get_user_metadata_details or ryot_game_discovery. No context about prerequisites or conditions for use.

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