Get library

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the API key requirement and the default sort order ('most-played first'). This adds meaningful operational context that an agent needs to avoid errors. It stops short of revealing error handling or rate-limit behavior, but for a read-only library query this is quite good.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary output (owned games with hours) and then the key prerequisite. Every clause earns its place—no filler or redundancy. The ordering detail is embedded naturally rather than appended as an afterthought.

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 read-only query, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, the default sort, and a critical authentication requirement. It does not explain what happens without an API key or when the profile is private, but those failure modes are implicitly covered by 'requires.' The absence of an output schema is acceptable since none is provided, and the description provides enough to call the tool correctly in most cases.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters are described inline), so with a high coverage baseline of 3, this score is appropriate. The description's mention of 'most-played first' provides a default ordering hint that hints at the limit parameter's interaction but does not describe any specific parameter semantics beyond that. No contradictions or extra value beyond the schema.

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 exactly what the tool returns: the player's owned games with hours played, in a specific order (most-played first). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_recently_played and get_wishlist, even without naming them. The verb 'get' appears in the tool name and the description's noun-phrase structure is 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 mentions a prerequisite (Steam API key and public profile) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings. It does not contrast with get_recently_played or get_wishlist, nor does it suggest alternatives for different intents. An agent is left to infer usage boundaries from the tool name alone.

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