get_user_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the output fields and implies a read-only operation, but does not mention potential limitations (e.g., private profiles), authentication requirements, or error cases. The description adds some context about return values but lacks depth.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of return fields, and a usage example. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient detail: purpose, return fields, and an example. The only minor gap is the absence of any note about profile visibility or data availability, but the existing output schema likely covers return structure, making this adequate.

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 describes the steam_id parameter thoroughly, including an example and the vanity URL resolution note. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies given 100% 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 the tool retrieves a Steam user profile (조회합니다) and lists the specific return fields (personaname, avatarfull, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_friends_list or get_owned_games, which focus on other data types.

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 includes a concrete usage example with steam_id and adds a helpful cross-tool reference to resolve_vanity_url for vanity URLs, indicating a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling context makes this implicit.

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