get_recently_played_games

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, side effects, or any constraints beyond the returned data. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs an external API call.

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 succinct, comprising a purpose statement, bullet-like return data summary, and an example. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or verbosity.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description covers the essential purpose and return fields. It lacks usage guidelines and transparency details, but considering the low complexity and schema richness, it is largely complete.

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 already thoroughly describes both parameters (steam_id and count, with default and max). The description adds a usage example, which is helpful but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 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 retrieves a list of recently played games (최근 플레이한 게임 목록을 조회합니다). It specifies the resource and verb, and the return data (App ID, name, playtime) distinguishes it from siblings like get_owned_games or get_user_profile.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes a usage example but does not mention exclusions or compare with sibling tools like get_owned_games. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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