steam_get_inventory

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive aspects. The description adds a minor scope clarification (game items vs. community items) but does not mention important behavioral traits like sampling behavior (count parameter), rate limits, or authentication requirements. Since annotations handle the safety profile, a mid-score is appropriate.

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, clearly worded sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and object, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity with six parameters and an output schema, but the description alone is too sparse to guide selection among 36 siblings. The schema and annotations partially compensate, but the description lacks situational guidance, making it minimally viable rather than comprehensive.

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 description does not mention any of the six parameters (appid, count, steamid, language, context_id, response_format), despite the schema having detailed property descriptions. With 0% coverage in the description, it fails to compensate for parameter meaning, leaving the agent to rely 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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('a user's Steam inventory'), and adds the clarification of 'game items or generic Community items,' which distinguishes inventory from related concepts like owned games or badges. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like steam_get_owned_games, steam_get_player_badges, or steam_get_market_price. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without selection rationale.

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