steam_analyze_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it covers backlog, playtime distribution, and abandoned games, which gives some behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't discuss rate limits, data freshness, or any potential edge cases. It's adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core purpose and the three main outputs. No wasted words, perfectly concise while still being informative.

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?

The tool has a rich parameter schema and an output schema (mentioned but not shown), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for an 'analyze whole library' tool, the description omits any mention of how the analysis is structured (e.g., aggregated stats vs. per-game lists) and the overall scope is broad. It's minimally complete but leaves gaps for a first-time user.

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 main description adds no parameter information, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for every parameter (e.g., stale_days, abandoned_sort, exclude_temp_clients). Since schema description coverage is effectively 100% from the schema's own field descriptions, the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 names the verb 'analyze' and the resource 'whole game library', then lists three concrete outputs (backlog, playtime distribution, abandoned games). This gives a specific sense of what the tool does and differentiates it from simple retrieval tools like steam_get_owned_games, though it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings.

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 implies the tool is for high-level library analysis rather than raw data retrieval, but it provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance and names no alternatives. The use case is clear from context, but there are no exclusions or comparison to other Steam tools.

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