steam_get_steam_level

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only a minor clarification about XP-based level, which does not disclose additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate limits. This is acceptable given the annotations, but no extra context is provided.

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 sentence (10 words) that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and it is immediately understandable.

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 tool with detailed annotations and schema, the description is sufficient. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists. It also does not mention the optional nature of steamid, but the schema covers that. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema descriptions for both 'steamid' and 'response_format' are comprehensive, covering formats, examples, and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema fully carries the burden, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Get a user's Steam community level' with a clarifying parenthetical about XP-based level. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_player_summary or get_player_badges.

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 usage for retrieving a Steam community level, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context are provided, though the openWorldHint annotation suggests it is safe to use broadly. This is 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.

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