get_steam_friends

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 doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the response format looks like, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 very concise, with a single sentence plus an Args block. It's front-loaded with the main action and then explains the parameter. No wasted words, though the Args block formatting is a bit unusual for a description but still clear.

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 (not shown in detail but indicated as present), so return values may be covered there. The description covers the main parameter and the default behavior. However, for a tool with no annotations, it lacks context on authentication requirements, privacy considerations (friends lists can be private), and how it relates to sibling friend-related tools. It's minimally complete but has gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the steamid parameter: 'Optional Steam ID. If not provided, uses your own Steam ID.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only says 'default: null'. However, it doesn't specify the format of the Steam ID (e.g., 64-bit SteamID) or how to obtain it, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the tool retrieves a user's Steam friends list, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Steam friends list'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_steam_library or get_player_summary by focusing on friends. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_friends_current_games or compare_games_with_friend, which are also friend-related, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 context: it's for fetching friends, and the optional steamid parameter suggests it can be used for the caller's own friends or another user's. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over get_friends_current_games or compare_games_with_friend, nor does it mention any prerequisites like authentication. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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