Game details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses on-demand store fetching, a two-week cache, a shared rate limit of ~200 requests per 5 minutes, and the recommendation to avoid loops. It doesn't cover error behavior or auth, but the core side-effect and performance traits are clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences, with the tool's purpose front-loaded and the operational caveat following. No fluff, every clause contributes meaning, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 single-game detail tool with no output schema, it covers the key behavioral aspects (rate limit, caching, avoid loops) and enumerates the data returned. Missing details like the refresh flag's effect and the exact return shape are notable but not fatal, and the description is adequate for safe invocation.

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 40% (only name and include_store have descriptions). The description adds context that store data is rate-limited and cached, which helps for include_store, but it doesn't explain refresh or include_reviews semantics. It partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves several parameters under-explained.

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 returns 'Everything known about one game' and enumerates specific data types (install state, playtime, tags, collections, store metadata). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like library_list or library_search by focusing on a single game's aggregated details, so an agent can easily pick it for per-game queries.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: use for detailed info on one game, and warns against looping over many games due to the shared store request budget. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for list operations, but the scope is unambiguous, and the rate-limit guidance provides practical when-to-use/avoid guidance.

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