get_game_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return data content and a usage example, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior for invalid app_ids. This is a mild transparency gap, hence a middle score.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the primary action, then lists return data, and ends with a concrete usage example. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundant content.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It nevertheless does so, which is slightly redundant but still useful. The description, schema, and context signals together provide enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptive text, including the 100-item limit for app_ids and supported language strings. The description also provides an example of parameter usage ('app_ids=[730, 570, 440], language="english"'), reinforcing the schema. It does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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's purpose: to retrieve game details from the Steam store. It lists specific return fields (name, developers, publishers, price, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_game_schema or search_games. The verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) and resource '게임 상세 정보' are specific and 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you have Steam app_ids and need detailed game information. It provides a usage example with app_ids and language, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context makes the use case clear, though it stops short of naming sibling tools for differentiation.

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