insights

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, but it only lists action names. It does not mention data source, side effects, permission needs, export behavior, or what the returned data looks like.

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, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a comma-separated fragment that restates enum values and provides no front-loaded verb or sentence structure.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, this description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot determine required context, parameter interplay, action semantics, or expected outputs.

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% across 11 parameters, and the description explains none of them. It re-lists the action enum values but says nothing about year, limit, format, steamid, filters, or sorting.

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 is a fragment listing content areas ('Completion stats, timeline, year review, play history, export') rather than stating what the tool does with a verb and resource. It conveys the tool's domain but is vague and does not differentiate 'insights' from siblings like game_info or player.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named despite 13 sibling tools. The phrase merely hints that the tool covers insights-style data, leaving the agent to infer when it should be selected.

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