player

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists data categories and never states whether this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, what rate limits apply, or what the response shape is. The lack of explicit safety/behavioral context is a meaningful gap for an agent.

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 very short and contains no filler, which is positive. But it is a bare comma-separated list rather than a structured sentence, and it omits global_achievements and schema actions, so the efficiency doesn't translate into a well-organized or complete summary.

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 9 enum actions, 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It doesn't explain the per-action parameter requirements (e.g., appid for achievements), the meaning of steamid, or how this tool relates to siblings. An agent cannot reliably select and invoke the correct action based on this description.

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%, and the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. It doesn't explain that action selects which query to run, that steamid identifies the player, or that appid is required for achievement-related actions. The comma list in the description merely mirrors the action enum values already present in the 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 identifies the resource as the Steam player and lists the data domains it covers (profile, level, bans, friends, achievements, owned/recent games), which is a clear indicator of purpose even without a verb. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like games, library, or game_info that also surface game-related data.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or on how the action parameter dispatches between the many possible player queries. There is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the bare noun list.

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