study_reviews

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely non-derivable context: only app ids are saved, review texts stay in the local cache, and no reviewer information is fetched. It does not cover failure behavior or whether this must follow study_market, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Purpose, workflow, and persistence caveat are front-loaded before the Args block, and the Args block maps cleanly to the three parameters. It is somewhat verbose, but every sentence carries operational information, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description still indicates that themes are returned and how to use them. Persistence semantics and parameter constraints are covered. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (e.g. whether a market study must exist first).

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 0%, so the description carries the whole burden and does so: path is the game's folder, appids overrides the market study's default, and per_kind defines reviews per game and kind with the 3-25 range and default 10. The 3-25 constraint is not expressed anywhere in the schema, adding real value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a review study') plus the exact scope of what is fetched (most helpful positive and negative English reviews) and the workflow it kicks off. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings: save_review_study is the follow-up step and study_market is the source it defaults to.

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?

Explicitly names the default target (the market study's close games), the override condition and parameter ('appids: Games to study instead of the market study's'), and a concrete trigger ('this game after launch'). It also dictates the required next action ('then call save_review_study'), leaving no routing ambiguity.

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