get_player_summary

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this tool requires authentication, whether it is read-only, or what happens if the steamids parameter is invalid. The mention of defaulting to your own Steam ID is useful, but the lack of safety or error behavior disclosure is a gap.

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 a single sentence plus an Args section. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the optional parameter detail is efficiently placed. No fluff or unnecessary repetition, though the Args section could be integrated more naturally.

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 has an output schema, so return values are covered. Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is relatively complete. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases like multiple IDs, invalid IDs, or rate limits, and it doesn't mention authentication requirements.

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 explains that steamids is an optional comma-separated list and that omitting it uses your own Steam ID. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, it doesn't clarify format expectations (e.g., numeric ID vs SteamID64) or limits, so it partially compensates.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed player profile information', and lists the included fields (status, avatar, location). This is clear and specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_steam_profile, which likely focuses on basic profile data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_user_profile or get_current_user_profile, which may overlap.

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 usage by stating it gets player profile information and that it can use your own Steam ID if not provided. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_steam_profile or get_user_profile, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.

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