get_steam_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only reveals the default-ID fallback behavior. It says nothing about whether fetching another user's library raises privacy considerations, what 'detailed statistics' actually includes, or what happens when credentials are missing or the steamid is invalid.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the whole description is two compact sentences plus a one-line Args note. The Args block partially mirrors the schema but earns its place by adding semantic content the schema lacks, so nothing is wasted.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: the parameter, its optionality, and the fallback behavior. Return-value details are appropriately delegated to the output schema; the only real gap is sibling-selection guidance, already captured under usage_guidelines.

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, and it does: it states that steamid is optional and explains the fallback to the caller's own ID. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare 'string with default null' schema, though it stops short of specifying the expected ID format.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get user's Steam game library') with a payload qualifier ('with detailed statistics'), making it identifiable among Steam siblings like get_steam_friends, get_steam_profile, and get_player_achievements. It does not explicitly contrast it with get_user_game_stats, whose 'statistics' scope could overlap, but the core purpose is 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_steam_friends, get_player_achievements, or get_user_game_stats. The only usage note ('If not provided, uses your own Steam ID') addresses parameter behavior, not tool selection, so the agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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