steam_get_workshop_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the resource type examples and does not disclose additional behaviors like response format handling or potential limitations. With annotations covering the core safety traits, this score is acceptable but not enriched.

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, clear sentence that includes a parenthetical list of item types for clarity. It contains no redundant or filler content, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential purpose without needing to explain return values or additional context. A slightly longer description might offer more usage nuance, but this is adequate for a read-only metadata retrieval tool.

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 input schema itself provides a detailed description for published_file_id, explaining it as the Steam Workshop published file ID from the community URL. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance. Since schema coverage is effectively high, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 retrieves metadata for a Steam Workshop item, using the specific verb 'Get' and identifying the resource with examples (mod, map, guide, collection). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which target Workshop items directly.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when Workshop item metadata is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. There is no exclusion or comparison with other Steam tools, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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