steam_get_current_players

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral nuance of 'live concurrency', clarifying that the result is a real-time snapshot rather than a historical or cached value. This goes beyond the annotation baseline, providing useful context about the data's freshness.

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 with the core verb and object front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It does not explain return value structure, but the output schema is expected to cover that. The lack of detail about what 'title' means (e.g., requiring an appid) is a minor gap, but the schema partially addresses it.

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 tool description does not mention any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. While the schema itself provides brief descriptions for 'appid' and 'response_format', the description fails to compensate for the low coverage by explaining that an app ID is required or how to interpret 'title'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get the number of players currently in-game for a title, with the parenthetical 'live concurrency' adding specificity. It uses a specific verb 'get' and a specific resource 'number of current players', distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle game details, reviews, or player profiles.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for live data only or that other tools might provide historical or aggregate statistics. The phrase 'live concurrency' implies real-time context, but there is no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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