get_player_achievements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires prior authentication, any rate limits, or what happens if the game/app_id is invalid. It only states the action without any caveats or side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. No structure issues, but it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the return format is covered, but the description fails to clarify whose achievements are being fetched, what the app_id refers to, or any constraints. For a tool with a single parameter, this is incomplete—an agent would likely need to guess the intended user scope. There is also no mention of related tools or typical use cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single parameter app_id. It implies that app_id identifies the game, but does not specify its format (e.g., Steam App ID), how to obtain it, or whether it is required. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 states a clear action ('Get player achievements') and identifies the resource ('a specific game'), but it does not specify whose achievements are retrieved (e.g., the authenticated user vs. a specified player). This ambiguity makes it hard to distinguish from sibling tools like get_user_game_stats or get_player_summary, which could also return achievement-like 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, authentication requirements, or scenarios where a different sibling tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and vague description.

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