steam_get_friend_list

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail that each friend is enriched with name and current status, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default user handling, or any potential edge cases, so it only modestly extends what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence of 11 words. Every word earns its place, clearly conveying the key action and the enrichment aspect without fluff or repetition.

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 simple read-only list tool with a rich input schema, a high-quality output schema, and strong annotations, this description is mostly complete. It captures the core value proposition (friend list with enrichment). It could be slightly richer by noting how the target user is specified (e.g., uses steamid or defaults to configured STEAM_USER), but that information is already in the schema.

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?

With schematic description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate for parameter guidance, but it mentions no parameters at all. The input schema itself contains thorough descriptions for steamid, limit, offset, online_only, and response_format, but the tool description adds no extra meaning and relies entirely on 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 lists a user's Steam friends and enriches them with name and current status. The verb 'List' and the specific resource ('a user's Steam friends') make the purpose unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like steam_find_friends_who_own or steam_get_player_summary.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. There is no mention of when to prefer this over sibling tools such as steam_get_player_summary or steam_find_friends_who_own, leaving usage entirely implied.

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