Get owned games

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency about visibility requirements (public profile + game-details visibility), which is important for an agent to know before invocation. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences that efficiently convey the tool's action, prerequisites, and parameter guidance. No unnecessary words; all sentences add value.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, prerequisites, and how to get the input. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 documents the steamid parameter with pattern and description (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the parameter can be omitted to use the server-configured STEAM_ID, and by instructing how to convert a vanity URL using resolve_vanity_url.

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 owned games with playtime in hours, sorted by most-played first. It distinguishes from siblings like get_recently_played or get_wishlist by specifying the scope (all owned games) and the metric (playtime).

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 usage context: requires STEAM_API_KEY, a public profile, and game-details visibility. It also directs the user to resolve_vanity_url to obtain the necessary SteamID64. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context and sibling tools provide sufficient guidance.

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