steam_getSchemaForGame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the requirement for STEAM_API_KEY, implying authentication is needed. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it discuss rate limits, caching, or error conditions (e.g., invalid appid). The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but more explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (achievement fields and stat definitions) and the prerequisite (API key). It could mention that it is a read operation or handle potential empty responses, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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% with a single parameter (appid) described as 'Steam application ID to get the achievement/stat schema for.' The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, as it already describes the parameter's role. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the description does not introduce additional semantic detail.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get'), resource ('achievement and stat schema for a Steam app'), and enumerates the return types (internal names, display names, descriptions, icon URLs, stat definitions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like steam_getPlayerAchievements and steam_getAchievementStats by focusing on the schema definitions rather than player-specific 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 explains the use case ('mapping internal ACH_ names to human-readable names') and notes the required API key. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools exist for player-specific or aggregated data.

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