get_owned_games

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as return data fields, the fact that playtime is in minutes (with a conversion example), and the fallback to environment variable STEAM_USER_ID for steam_id. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the env var, or potential pagination/limits, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 well-structured: purpose, return data, unit clarification, and a usage example. Each sentence adds value, though the unit clarification and example are slightly redundant with the schematic information. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It covers the resource being queried, key return fields, and a concrete example. It could be enhanced by explicitly differentiating from get_recently_played_games, but this is not a major gap.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults and the env var fallback for steam_id. The description adds an example (steam_id='76561198000000000', include_app_info=True) but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 '사용자가 소유한 모든 게임을 조회합니다' (retrieves all games owned by the user), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_recently_played_games by focusing on the complete owned library, and lists key return fields (appid, name, playtimes, last_played), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 context (gets all owned games) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recently_played_games or get_game_details. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so the usage guidance is merely 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.