steam_analyze_library

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it analyzes the whole library, counts abandoned games by staleness, and excludes temp clients by default. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if steamid is omitted and STEAM_USER is not set, or whether the analysis is expensive/slow for large libraries.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It's efficient and doesn't waste words. It could arguably add a bit more context about the analysis outputs, but for a tool with a rich schema, this is appropriately sized.

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 no output schema, so the description should hint at what the analysis returns. It lists three output categories (backlog, playtime distribution, abandoned games) which gives a rough idea, but doesn't describe the structure of the response (e.g., markdown vs json, what stats are included). The parameter descriptions fill in some gaps (e.g., abandoned_sort options), but the overall return shape is left to inference. For a complex analysis tool, this is a moderate gap.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. The description itself doesn't explain parameters, but the input schema has rich descriptions for every parameter (steamid, top_limit, stale_days, backlog_limit, abandoned_sort, abandoned_limit, response_format, exclude_temp_clients). The description's mention of 'backlog, playtime distribution, abandoned games' maps conceptually to the parameters. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the description adds marginal value but doesn't need to.

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 states a clear verb ('Analyze') and resource ('a whole game library') and lists three concrete outputs: backlog, playtime distribution, abandoned games. It distinguishes itself from siblings like steam_get_owned_games (which just lists games) and steam_analyze_game (which analyzes a single game), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 when to use it: when you need an aggregate analysis of a library rather than a single game or list. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the distinction fairly clear. The parameter descriptions add some usage context (e.g., backlog_limit defaulting to max so 'what should I play' sees the whole backlog), which helps.

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