spawn_list_games

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the output format and token-based restriction, but it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it cover error conditions or authentication details. Some behavior is clarified, but gaps remain.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, output shape, and a follow-up instruction. No wasted words, and the structure is clear and 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?

For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core context: what is listed, the return shape, and the next step. It could add a brief note on read-only behavior or how projectDir affects results, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 input schema has full coverage for the single optional parameter projectDir, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema for this parameter; it focuses on the output and usage, not the parameter semantics.

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 lists games the current token can push to, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('games'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spawn_push or spawn_create_game. It also provides the exact output shape, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for selecting a game to push to and instructs asking the creator which one by name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but implicit.

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