steam_getPlayerCount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that no API key is required, which is useful for authorization awareness. However, it does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or whether the call is read-only. The description adds modest transparency beyond the schema.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the core purpose and the other adding a critical behavioral detail (no API key). Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or padding.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the purpose and a key requirement. However, it does not describe the return value format (e.g., just the number, or wrapped in an object). While the output is likely intuitive, completeness would benefit from a brief indication of what is returned.

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 already provides a clear description for the single parameter 'appid' with an example (e.g., 730 for Counter-Strike 2). The tool description does not add further parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full 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 action ('Get'), resource ('current number of concurrent players'), and scope ('for a Steam app'). It also provides a unique selling point ('No API key required'). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools which focus on achievements, lobbies, or other data.

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 the tool is for retrieving player counts but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools, guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for historical counts or filtered data) is absent.

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