steam_getPlayerAchievements

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the read-only nature, required public profile, and API key dependency. It does not discuss error cases (e.g., private profile) or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are communicated.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and following with constraints. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential constraints and purpose. It does not detail the return format or potential empty results, but the context is adequate for a straightforward get operation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter.

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 specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('achievement unlock status and timestamps'), and the scope ('for a specific player and Steam app'). It distinctly describes a read operation, differentiating it from sibling tools like steam_setAchievement or steam_clearAchievement.

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 states prerequisites (public profile, API key) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like steam_getAchievementStats. The context for use is implied but not compared to siblings.

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