Get taste profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the Steam API key prerequisite and describes the analytical behavior and output categories. It does not cover failure modes like private libraries, but that is a minor gap.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the core purpose and outputs front-loaded, followed by practical use cases and the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, this description is nearly complete: it explains the return content, use cases, and authentication requirement. A minor caveat about needing a public Steam profile could be added, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, with both 'user' and 'depth' fully documented including defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('derive') with a clear resource ('what a player actually likes from their library') and enumerates the concrete outputs: tag affinities, top genres, signature games, and bounced titles. This clearly distinguishes the tool from raw library access or recommendation tools.

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?

Offers explicit use cases: 'explain or sanity-check a recommendation' and answer 'what kind of games am I into'. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid or state when not to use it.

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