get_player_games_to_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'where they must act' adds some state context, but the description does not disclose whether authentication is needed, what 'daily games' means precisely, or any rate-limit or scope caveats.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though the ambiguity of 'daily games' keeps it from being a perfect concise definition.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, the description is minimal but missing operational context: it does not define 'daily games', describe the expected return shape, or clarify when to select this over competing sibling tools. The lack of annotations and output schema makes these omissions more significant.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single username parameter, and the description does not add details about the parameter beyond the schema's property name. Username is self-explanatory, so this is not a severe gap, but the description still fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 states a concrete verb ('Get') and a resource ('a player's daily games') with a specific filter ('where they must act'), so it is not a tautology. It is clear enough that an agent can tell this is about games awaiting the player's move, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_player_current_games or get_player_live_games.

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 about when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_player_current_games, get_player_live_games, or get_player_games_by_month. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'where they must act'; no alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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