get_friend_game_recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the high-level purpose and does not mention read-only nature, authentication expectations, dependencies on the current user's library, or behavior when there are no recommendations.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence defines the core behavior ROCKS and one line documents the parameter. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema exists.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and input role adequately. However, it omits any context about prerequisites, alternatives, or edge cases, leaving an agent without guidance on related tools or failure conditions.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an Args line that explains friend_steamid as the Steam ID of the friend whose library drives recommendations. This is sufficient for a single required 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 states a specific operation, getting game recommendations, and the distinguishing logic: based on what a friend owns but the user does not. It distinguishes itself semantically from siblings like compare_games_with_friend, though it does not explicitly name or rule out any sibling.

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 intended context is implied: use when you want game suggestions derived from a friend's library relative to your own. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives, or clarify how it differs from other Steam comparison tools.

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