Get game metadata

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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint and idempotentHint) by using 'Read', so no contradiction. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as caching or network dependencies. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description contributes minimally but adequately.

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 concise sentence that lists the key data categories. No filler or redundancy, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 is simple with full annotation coverage and complete parameter documentation. The description lists the returned metadata categories, which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, it does not explain the response structure, so a small gap remains.

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 100%, so both parameters already carry detailed descriptions (e.g., clientId defaults to active client, includeMarketplace caching behavior). The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics, but the schema does the heavy lifting, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') and specifies the resource (game metadata) along with the scoped data categories (place, universe, server, creator, local-player). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_tree or status, which target different data or scope.

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 implies usage when one needs current game metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The simplicity of the read operation makes the context reasonably clear, but explicit guidance is absent.

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