Get a player's followed games

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses specific behaviors: returns only appids and store_url, no price/name, capped at 200 items with a 'returned' vs 'total' check, and returns found:false on private profiles. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect.

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 dense but every sentence contributes unique value: purpose, distinction, prerequisites, output format, pagination, and next steps. It is front-loaded with the primary function and avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: input, output, failure mode, pagination, and related tools. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional lookups.

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 schema already fully describes the steamid parameter, including format and optional omission. The description essentially repeats this information and adds no new parameter-specific semantics; the only extra detail concerns the resolve_vanity_url prerequisite, which is a cross-tool note rather than parameter meaning.

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 a player's followed games by SteamID64, using a specific verb (list) and resource (followed games). It explicitly distinguishes this from the wishlist, making the scope unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like get_wishlist.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: mentions using resolve_vanity_url to convert vanity names, passing appids to get_items for additional data, and notes that the profile must be public. It also clarifies that no API key is required for this tool while the conversion does, giving clear context for usage.

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