steam_get_game_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful operational behavior: appids are capped at 50 per call and include_dlcs is effectively a no-op. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, side-effect guarantees, or the response shape, so some transparency 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 short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first line and parameter clarifications in compact bullet-like lines. Every sentence adds value, especially the reserved include_dlcs caveat.

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 low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call-critical details: what the tool returns, which parameters matter, and the batch limit. The remaining gaps are minor, such as auth preconditions and exact response structure.

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 must compensate. It does so well: appids are defined as Steam appids with a 50-per-call limit, and include_dlcs is explained as reserved because Steam DLC ownership is not derivable here. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the raw 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 the tool provides full details for specific Steam games, naming the two content areas: playtime breakdown and local install info. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like steam_list_games (library listing) and epic_get_game_details / igdb_get_game_details (non-Steam or cross-platform lookups).

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?

There is clear context: use this when you need details for specific Steam appids. The description also gives a when-not signal by marking include_dlcs as reserved and noting that Steam DLC ownership is not separately derivable here. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the intended use is clear.

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