get_workshop_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return fields and provides an example call, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (despite page/count params), sorting semantics beyond query_type, or any side effects (though likely read-only). It is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes example usage and return fields in a compact format, which is efficient. No wasted words, though it could be slightly better organized.

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, the description need not explain return values, but it does anyway, which is helpful. The main gap is lack of usage guidance and differentiation from the sibling tool. For a list endpoint with moderate complexity, it is adequate but not comprehensive, especially since no annotations are provided.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a concrete example with typical values and the return fields, but does not explain parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 queries Steam Workshop items and lists the returned fields, which is a specific verb+resource. The name vs. sibling (get_workshop_item_details) suggests a list operation, but the description does not explicitly differentiate between them, so it misses the top score.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus get_workshop_item_details or other siblings. The example usage with app_id/query_type/page/count provides a concrete scenario, but it does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer.

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