get_wishlist

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation with 'Retrieve' but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the wishlist is empty. The description adds context about the wishlist being 'already flagged as interesting,' which is helpful, but it does not go beyond a basic getter description.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence is a clear verb+resource statement, and the second adds workflow context without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the overall workflow and implies the return includes AppIDs, but it does not describe the output structure, parameter effects, or edge cases. The absence of parameter semantics and output details leaves significant gaps in the agent's understanding.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not mention 'sort', 'limit', or 'steam_id', leaving the agent to infer their meanings from the schema only. Since the schema provides enumerations and types but no semantic explanation, the description fails to compensate for this gap.

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 the user's Steam wishlist, using the specific verb 'Retrieve' and a well-defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the wishlist and explicitly mentioning the deal-checking workflow, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to find games the user has already flagged as interesting' and explicitly names alternative/subsequent tools (get_game_prices, get_historical_low). It also frames the tool as part of 'the most targeted buy-signal workflow,' giving context on its preferred position in a sequence.

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