get_steam_config

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavior. 'Get ... status' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the zero-parameter schema plus output schema cover much of the remaining risk. However, it does not say whether this performs a live connectivity check, reads cached configuration, or requires prior OAuth setup.

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?

One short sentence with no redundant words or structure overhead. It is efficient, though it could have used an extra clause to clarify the status semantics without becoming verbose.

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 no-arg getter with an output schema, this is minimally viable. The main gap is the missing comparison to test_steam_credentials and the lack of detail on what 'configuration status' actually reports, which an agent would want before invoking it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the baseline the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. It correctly implies the tool takes no input.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('Steam API configuration status'), so an agent can tell this is a read-only status query for Steam. It does not explicitly contrast with test_steam_credentials, but the domain and action are unambiguous.

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 call this tool versus test_steam_credentials or the configuration/token-status tools for other platforms. The agent has to infer the appropriate use from the tool name alone.

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