steam_validateStoreAsset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Validate'), the scope ('against current Valve pixel sizes...'), and notes that no API key is required, implying a local, read-only operation. It does not explicitly confirm zero side effects or describe the return shape, but the validation framing makes the behavior reasonably clear.

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 entire description is a single sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, input type, and a distinguishing feature ('No API key required'). There is no filler, repetition, or overly technical jargon—every word earns its place.

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 with only two well-described parameters, and the description explains the core validation purpose. However, because there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a pass/fail result, a list of validation errors), the agent is left to infer the response format. This is a notable gap for a validation 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (path as 'Local filesystem path to a PNG or JPEG' and slot as an enum with all possible values), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, leaving it at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and identifies the target resource ('local store or library image') and the validation criteria ('Valve pixel sizes, format rules, library-hero heuristics'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling Steam API tools, which are all server-side data retrieval or mutation operations.

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 sets a clear context: this tool validates local image files and does not require an API key, which implicitly differentiates it from the API-dependent sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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