get_steam_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by explaining the default fallback behavior ('If not provided, uses your own Steam ID'), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose credential requirements, read-only nature, or what the returned profile contains—minor gaps for a simple getter but meaningful since annotations are absent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place; there is zero filler or redundancy.

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 is simple, has an output schema (so return values needn't be described), and one optional parameter that the description covers well. However, it fails to address the ambiguous relationship with get_player_summary, which appears to target the same resource, leaving the agent without enough context to reliably disambiguate among the many Steam sibling tools.

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 explains the single parameter's optionality, type semantics (Steam ID), and the fallback behavior when omitted, which the schema alone (just 'string' with default null) does not convey. This is strong compensation for one parameter, though it stops short of specifying format/validation rules.

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 verb and resource ('Get Steam profile information'), so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_player_summary or get_steam_library, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with. Clear but lacking sibling differentiation puts it at a 4.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_player_summary or get_user_game_stats, nor does it name exclusions or sibling tools. The only usage note is the parameter fallback behavior, which is about invocation, not tool selection. There is essentially no when-to-use guidance.

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