MCP SteamOS Devkit

by elliotttate

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct due to clear prefixes (adb_, lepton_, steam_frame_), but some overlap exists, e.g., between inspect_android_apk and lepton_apk_info, which both inspect APK metadata. Overall, an agent can differentiate most tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern, often with verb_noun structure and domain-specific prefixes. There are no mixed conventions or chaotic naming.
Tool Count3/5
With 79 tools, the count is high for a single server, potentially overwhelming for an agent. However, the tools cover diverse sub-areas (ADB, Lepton, SteamVR), making the count borderline appropriate.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core workflows like title management, debugging, logging, and profiling. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no start/stop for individual services), but arbitrary command tools fill many needs.
Average 2.7/5 across 79 of 79 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'bounded' (implying a line limit) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what 'native' means. Behavioral context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is too brief for a tool with 6 parameters. It is under-specified and lacks necessary detail, despite being concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (6), 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain output, parameter roles, or usage scenarios, leaving it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 6 parameters, and the description does not mention any parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Collect bounded native Lepton logcat output for a Lepton context,' which identifies the action (collect) and resource (Lepton logcat output). However, it does not explain what 'Lepton' refers to or distinguish it clearly from siblings like adb_logcat. The purpose is somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adb_logcat or journalctl_tail. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read operation ('inventory'), but with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose important behaviors such as authentication requirements, side effects, or performance characteristics. It does not contradict annotations as there are none.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 8 words, but it lacks structure. It is a single sentence without front-loading or organization, which reduces its informativeness while still being efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not help the agent understand how this tool fits into the Lepton debugging context or how it differs from similar tools like lepton_artifacts_manifest.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description has full responsibility to explain parameters. It mentions 'files, hashes, and selected small snippets' but does not map these to any of the 6 parameters (e.g., include_snippets, target, max_depth). No parameter info is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it inventories files, hashes, and snippets from Lepton rootfs overlay, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like lepton_artifacts_manifest or lepton_mounts, leaving ambiguity about its specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, context of use, or exclusions are mentioned, making it hard for an agent to decide between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'switch', implying a state change, but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the switch is immediate or queued. Substantially insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence but omits critical information given the tool's complexity. It is not appropriately scaled; the cost of brevity is too high.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, 9 parameters, and an output schema not leveraged, the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot safely or correctly invoke this tool based on the current definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no explanation for any of the 9 parameters (3 required). The agent lacks any insight into what 'target', 'gameid', 'mode', etc. mean or how they interact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it switches the Steam client mode for the main session, providing a verb and resource. However, it lacks specificity and does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_session or steam_frame properties. The term 'mode' is vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely declarative with no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'run... extractor' without explaining side effects, permissions, output format, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence and under-specified. While short, it sacrifices clarity for brevity. Important context is missing, making it not genuinely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description fails to provide adequate context. Although an output schema exists, the lack of parameter explanation and behavioral details makes the tool difficult to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter details. There are 5 parameters (2 required) with no explanation of their meaning, format, or relationship. The 'login' parameter with anyOf null/string is especially unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('run... apk-info-extractor') and target ('remote APK path'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspect_android_apk', which may serve a similar purpose. The verb 'Run' is specific but lacks context about what the extractor does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspect_android_apk'. The description provides no context about prerequisites, expected inputs, or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'inspect binaries' without mentioning return values, side effects, or operational constraints (e.g., read-only nature).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence and front-loaded with the verb 'Inspect'. However, it omits important structural details such as bullet points or examples that could improve clarity without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single optional parameter and lack of output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how to specify the parameter. Context around usage (e.g., when to provide 'steamvr_root') is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists one optional parameter 'steamvr_root' with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain what this parameter does or provide any contextual meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('local SteamVR binaries') with a scope ('capture, replay, polling, and driver simulation string evidence'). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'local_steamvr_automation_inventory', and the phrase 'string evidence' is somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. With many sibling tools that may have overlapping purposes, this omission is critical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool returns a non-executing plan, implying no side effects, but fails to disclose whether it requires special permissions, affects system state, or has rate limits. The behavioral coverage is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It under-specifies the tool's functionality and parameters, making it insufficient for effective use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles, return value structure, or how this 'plan' differs from actual execution, leaving major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain any parameters (mode, login, target, context, http_port, name_type). This adds no value beyond the schema structure, leaving agents to guess parameter meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a non-executing debug/capture launch plan for specific tools (gdb, lldb, etc.). The verb 'return' and resource 'plan' are specific, and listing tools helps differentiate from siblings. However, the exact content or format of the plan is not clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like actual debugger commands or other capture tools (e.g., gpu_trace). The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a URL but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or dependencies (e.g., enabling CEF debugging first). The behavior is minimally described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly sparse. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and 4 parameters (1 required), the description lacks any detail about return values, parameter semantics, or prerequisites. It is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type). The agent has no context on what these parameters mean or how to use them, severely hindering correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a 'Steam CEF debugging URL for a device'. The verb 'Return' indicates a retrieval operation, and the resource 'Steam CEF debugging URL' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'enable_cef_debugging' or 'steam_frame_cef_pages'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether CEF debugging must be enabled first or how it relates to other CEF-related tools. There is no explicit context or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description is minimal. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires a connected device, how overwrite or source selection works, or what happens on failure. For a potentially risky copy operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence, 10 words), but lacks essential details. The description is too sparse to be useful; conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide comprehensive usage context. It only covers the target naming convention. Missing: source identification, overwrite behavior, preconditions (adb), output format, and typical use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the four parameters (apk_name, local_dir, overwrite, source_obb). The target path pattern hints at versionCode and package, but these are not mapped to parameters. The user cannot infer how to set each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Copy') and the resource ('main OBB') with a specific target path pattern ('obb/main.<versionCode>.<package>.obb'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_install_apk or lepton_apk_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other staging or validation tools). Missing prerequisites, such as requiring an adb connection or device setup, and no mention of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or is read-only. For a diagnostic tool, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits important details such as parameter meaning and usage context. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not needed, but the description lacks parameter information and does not mention prerequisites like ADB installation or device connectivity. The tool's purpose is partially clear but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The 'host' parameter is not explained in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, and the default value 'frame' is left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Find' and lists three distinct items: local ADB version/path conflicts, current devices, and Steam Frame hostname resolution. This distinguishes it from the more generic sibling 'adb_doctor' and other diagnostic tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'adb_doctor', 'doctor', or 'resolve_device'. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'delete' indicating destructiveness, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions required, or recovery options. The optional reset is noted but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly brief for a tool with 8 parameters. It lacks structure or front-loaded key information beyond the initial verb. There is no wasted text, but it could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive action, 8 parameters, output schema exists), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'devkit titles' are, the effect of delete_all, the purpose of confirmation_token, or how output schema relates. The description fails to provide enough context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'devkit titles' and 'reset Steam client state', failing to explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., target, delete_all, confirmation_token). Parameter names provide hints, but the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (devkit titles), and mentions the optional reset of Steam client state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_titles or upload_title. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., delete from the system).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions. The description is too brief to help an agent decide between this and similar tools like upload_title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only says 'collect... from the device.' It does not mention whether the tool modifies device state, requires specific permissions, or affects ongoing processes, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is too brief to be useful. Front-loading is present, but the brevity sacrifices substance for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool outputs, any dependencies (e.g., device connected), or how the parameters interrelate, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the 5 parameters have explanations. The description adds no detail about what 'target', 'local_filename', 'login', 'http_port', or 'name_type' mean, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool collects a gpu-trace zip from the device, which is a specific resource and action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'rgp_capture' or 'screenshot' that also capture performance data, leaving the agent uncertain about when to use this tool specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, forcing the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'bounded' but does not explain what that means (e.g., number of lines, polling vs. one-shot). It also omits how the tool connects to the target (likely remote) and any side effects, leaving behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but given the complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions), it is too terse. It is front-loaded but sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine valid unit names, the role of 'target', or how 'scope' and 'login' interact. Output schema exists, but behavior is still opaque.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only vaguely references 'user or system service unit' but does not map to specific parameters or clarify the roles of 'target', 'unit', 'login', 'scope', etc. No parameter meanings are conveyed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('tail') and resource ('journal lines') with scoping ('for a specific user or system service unit'). It is distinct from sibling tools like adb_logcat or coredump_list, which target different log sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use journalctl_tail vs. adb_logcat). No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions 'Read' without detailing any behavioral traits, permissions, side effects, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (one sentence) but at the cost of omitting critical parameter details. It is front-loaded but underspecified for a 4-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values or how parameters affect behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (target, login, http_port, name_type), leaving their meaning entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads Lepton CLI help from the SteamOS shell, indicating action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from other Lepton-related sibling tools like lepton_debug_plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many similar tools, and the description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description lacks behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or required permissions. 'Inspect' implies read-only but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, but it enumerates components without structure or prioritization. Could be more concise by omitting the list and focusing on the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, but the description gives no context on inputs or outputs. Fails to explain what the status result contains or how to interpret it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (target, login, http_port, name_type). No added meaning beyond the schema, which lacks descriptions itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool inspects specific graphics debug components (helper scripts, Vulkan layers, RenderDoc, perfetto, Mesa version). Verb 'Inspect' is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'lepton_context_inspect' or 'lepton_debug_plan' which may have overlapping purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling debug/inspection tools, there is no mention of contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation, which implies no destructive side effects. However, without annotations, it carries the full burden and offers no additional behavioral details such as required permissions, rate limits, or what exactly 'status and environment' entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but lacks critical information. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of completeness, making it under-specified for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return format (though an output schema exists), nor does it provide enough context for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for its four parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type), and the tool description provides no hints about their meaning or usage. Users must infer from names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the status and environment of the native SteamOS adbd.service, using the verb 'Read' and specifying the resource. While it is distinct from sibling tools like adb_devices or adb_connect_lepton_usb, it does not explicitly differentiate itself, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many sibling tools (e.g., adb_devices, adb_doctor). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention side effects such as loss of unsaved work, need for re-authentication, or impact on connected services. For a restart operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence, 9 words), which is efficient but borderline under-specified. It could be expanded to include essential parameter guidance without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description fails to provide necessary context for correct invocation. Important details about target values, optional parameters, and return behavior are entirely missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the six parameters. Critical parameters like 'target', 'login', and 'confirmation_token' are not explained, leaving the agent unable to select appropriate values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Restart' and specifies the resource as 'active SteamOS session or Steam user service'. It conveys the primary function succinctly, though it could be more precise about what exactly is restarted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_session' or other session management tools. No context on prerequisites or conditions for use is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'trigger and download,' but does not explain if the tool modifies system state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The behavior is underspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to provide adequate information, so it is not well-structured for effective use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of parameter descriptions and no explanation of the output (despite having an output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, side effects, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, not even the required 'target' and 'output_folder'. Users must infer their purpose from names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Trigger and download a Radeon GPU Profiler capture.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'gpu_trace', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when it should not be used. The description simply states what it does without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether the launch is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects). The name implies execution but lacks details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it omits critical information. It is front-loaded but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters. The tool provides no parameter explanations, leaving agents with only parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Launch' and the resource 'devkit title', indicating a unique function among siblings like list_titles and delete_title. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only indicates a mutation ('Change') but does not disclose effects such as logging out, impact on running applications, persistence, or required permissions. No annotations exist to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence), but under-specification outweighs brevity. The description lacks necessary detail, making it insufficiently structured to aid understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool, what outputs to expect (despite having output schema), or any side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it does not. It provides no information about target, session, wait, or other fields, leaving the agent completely uninformed about parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('SteamOS graphical session'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like restart_session, which may have overlapping purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like restart_session or other session-related tools. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'return' implying a read operation, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or constraints. The minimal description does not compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly brief given the parameter and complexity. It could mention the parameter or the output format without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description does not explain the parameter or give any context about the workflow notes. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'scenario' with a default of 'full'. The description offers no explanation of this parameter—its purpose, valid values, or effect. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns automation strategy notes for specific workflows (launch, UI, ADB, etc.), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'steam_frame_automation_inventory' which likely lists items rather than providing strategy notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as 'steam_frame_automation_inventory' or other steam_frame_* tools. The description lacks context for an AI agent to decide appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It only states it does not invoke control methods, but fails to disclose other behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or what happens on introspection. Minimal value added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient but lacks critical detail on parameters and usage. Not overly verbose, but content is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no parameter description, the tool definition is incomplete. The output schema exists but is not described. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no meaning for any of the 4 parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type). The description only mentions DBus interfaces/properties generically, leaving the agent to guess parameter purposes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it introspects DBus interfaces/properties without invoking control methods. This distinguishes it from tools that might perform control actions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like steam_frame_manager_interfaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for introspection, but lacks context on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated, and no mention is made of permissions, side effects, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not verbose, but it is under-informative for a tool with multiple parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of four parameters with zero schema descriptions, an output schema exists but is not described. The description fails to explain the purpose of parameters or the nature of the output, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type). The agent has no semantic understanding of what these parameters represent, severely hindering correct tool invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('inspect') and the resource ('native and Lepton OpenXR active-runtime configuration files'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools with similar 'inspect' patterns, though many siblings target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus other inspection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description must bear full burden. Only states 'List', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, or rate limits. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, very short sentence. While concise, it sacrifices essential detail. It is front-loaded but insufficient for a tool with 5 undocumented parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameters, return values (though output schema exists, it is not described), or usage context. The tool's complexity demands more information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 5 parameters (target, limit, login, http_port, name_type). The agent cannot infer their meanings or usage from the description alone, making the tool unusable without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'SteamVR tracking datasets' from a specific source. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sync_tracking_dataset' (sync) and 'tracking_dataset_analyze' (analyze). However, it lacks detail on what kind of listing or any filtering, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'sync_tracking_dataset' or 'tracking_dataset_analyze'). No mention of prerequisites or context. The agent gets no direction on appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description implies a read-only check via 'preflight', but does not explicitly state side-effects, permissions, or whether it modifies state. The behavioral transparency burden is on the description and is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks critical details for usability, so the conciseness is not optimal. Front-loads the purpose but sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too brief to provide sufficient context. It does not explain what the check entails, what requirements are verified, or how results are communicated. The tool has 6 parameters, and the description fails to cover usage context adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific information. Six parameters exist, including required local_dir, but the description does not clarify their roles or constraints, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool checks a local Android depot folder against Steam Frame SteamPipe release requirements, using a specific verb and resource. It clearly indicates a validation purpose, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like validate_android_split_package.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned. The description leaves the agent without criteria for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only hints at confirmation for uncurated commands but does not disclose error handling, permission requirements, or whether the tool causes side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that sends commands.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two sentences, but excessive brevity sacrifices critical detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence about confirmation is ambiguous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, output schema present but undiscussed), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter formats, response structure, or error cases, leaving the agent with no actionable guidance beyond the bare purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the seven parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no explanations for 'target', 'command', 'login', 'params', 'http_port', 'name_type', or 'confirmation_token', leaving the agent to guess their semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute a Steam devkit RPC command' and mentions confirmation for uncurated commands, giving a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'steam_services' or 'steam_logs_manifest' by focusing on RPC commands, though the term 'RPC command' is somewhat generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks explicit context or prerequisites, only mentioning that uncurated commands require confirmation, which is a safety note rather than usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It only states it lists services, with no mention of read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficient but lacking essential content. It is not verbose, but the brevity sacrifices clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no description of their meaning, no usage guidance, and no behavioral details, the description is far from complete. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (target, limit, login, scope, pattern, http_port, name_type). This severely undermines correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists Steam Frame systemd services, and hints at typical filters. However, it does not differentiate from many similar sibling tools like steam_frame_automation_inventory or steam_frame_dev_inventory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list includes many Steam Frame tools, but the description gives no criteria for selecting this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only says 'find and parse,' implying read-only data extraction, but does not disclose error behavior, idempotency, or whether it modifies any state. Insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is extremely short but under-specified; it could be restructured to include key parameter or usage details without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fails to explain the purpose of all parameters, lacks information about return values despite an output schema existing, and provides no context for how the tool behaves in different scenarios. Inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides zero explanation for any of the 4 parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type). The agent has no semantic understanding beyond parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds and parses specific 'perfcriteria.txt' reports, using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like steam_frame_automation_inventory or steam_frame_cef_pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any context about prerequisites or limitations. The description is a bare statement of function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states that it collects a bugreport to a local path. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., device performance impact, time consumption), required permissions, or whether it blocks execution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, no wasted words. However, it could be improved by adding more detail without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, and the description lacks essential context such as whether the operation is synchronous, typical duration, or the structure of the output (despite an output schema existing). It is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the schema), and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the 'serial' parameter or the expected format of 'output_path'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Collect') and the resource ('adb bugreport') into a local file or folder. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like adb_logcat or adb_shell, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred or avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'clear_first requires confirmation' but does not explain the bounded nature, return behavior, or side effects beyond clearing. Significant gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but at the expense of adequate information. It is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. Even with an output schema, it fails to explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral nuances. Too brief for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning only to 'clear_first' and 'confirmation_token' (via the hint), but ignores 'lines', 'serial', and 'filter_args'. Most parameters remain opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool collects a bounded adb logcat dump, which is a clear verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'lepton_logcat', which serves a similar function. A 5 would require explicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'adb_bugreport' or 'lepton_logcat'. The description only mentions 'clear_first requires confirmation' but does not give usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or limitations of the reverse command.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is concise, though it could benefit from structured parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters (2 required) and an output schema (unseen), the description is too brief. It lacks return value info, parameter format, and usage examples.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of parameters beyond their names. The meaning of 'device_port', 'host_port', and 'serial' is not elaborated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reverses a TCP connection from device to host, using specific ports. It uses a specific verb 'reverse' and resource format, differentiating it from sibling tools like adb_forward.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any conditions for use. Missing context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Read'), but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or system impacts. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, but lacks structured breakdown for parameters or usage. Acceptable for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with no descriptions and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values (though an output schema exists), prerequisites, or parameter relationships. Inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning parameters have no descriptions. The tool description does not explain the purpose of `login`, `target`, `http_port`, or `name_type`. It adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads Deckard/Steam Frame charger runtime files and power-supply sysfs state. The verb 'Read' is specific, and the resource is named. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like deckard_runtime_environment, but the focus on power status is unique enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other Deckard tools). No exclusions or context for usage provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, but no annotations exist. The description provides no further behavioral details such as authentication needs, error handling, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no waste. However, it lacks structure like bullet points or sections that could improve scanability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the purpose of the 4 parameters, any constraints, or the shape of the output. The tool cannot be used confidently without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no param descriptions in schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type), leaving the agent with no semantic information beyond parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool reads Deckard runtime version and Steam/Mesa launch environment defaults, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deckard_power_status. However, the phrase 'launch environment defaults' is slightly vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The single-sentence description only states the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or the nature of the operation (e.g., read-only vs destructive).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary content. It does not waste words but also does not provide enough information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema details, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover essential information for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 7 parameters. None of the parameters (appid, login, target, etc.) are explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (dump) and the resource (controller configuration VDF files from Steam), making the purpose 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Enable' but does not explain side effects, permissions needed, or whether changes are reversible. The effect on the system is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise, but it is too brief to be informative. While there is no fluff, important details are missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters (none described) and no behavioral or usage context, the description is highly incomplete for an agent to use effectively. Output schema existence is acknowledged but not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about any of the 4 parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type). The agent cannot infer parameter purpose from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable') and the resource ('Steam CEF remote debugging for the device's Steam client'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'open_cef_console'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about required conditions or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations. Description only states what is listed; no info on side effects, authentication, or scope. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence with no filler. Efficient but could benefit from structured breakdown of parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite output schema, the description omits critical context: what 'ADB/GDB/LLDB ports' imply, scope of listing (remote/local?), and definition of 'debug labels'. Incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description provides no explanation of any of the 4 parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type), leaving agent to guess their meaning and usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description specifies verb 'List' and resource 'Lepton podman containers', and mentions included info (ports, labels). While clear, it does not differentiate from siblings, but siblings are not similar enough to cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. Agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It implies a read operation but does not confirm safety or any destructive potential.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It does not waste words, but lacks detail needed for tool understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters (2 required), no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of key parameters like 'target' and 'context', despite having an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at 'optional mounts' (matching 'include_mounts' boolean) and mentions 'labels', but does not clarify 'target', 'context', 'login', 'http_port', or 'name_type'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool inspects a Lepton container context, including labels and optional mounts. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'lepton_containers' or 'lepton_mounts'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify context (e.g., when to inspect vs list) or provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Read' implies non-destructive behavior, but no details on authorization, side effects, or limitations. Lacks behavioral context beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices completeness—too sparse given 6 parameters and no parameter descriptions in schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description doesn't explain what return values to expect or how 'podman mounts' relate to the context. Does not cover behavior across all parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'context' and 'category', ignoring 4 other parameters (target, login, http_port, name_type). Does not explain required parameters like target.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'Read' and the resource 'Lepton podman mounts for a context', distinguishing it from siblings like lepton_containers. However, 'podman mounts' may be domain-specific and could be clearer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lepton_containers, lepton_context_inspect). The phrase 'optionally filtered by a known category' implies a use case but does not specify exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether a confirmation is required, if processes are killed safely, or system impacts. The description carries the full burden but fails to provide meaningful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), but for a tool with 5 parameters and potential destructive impact, it is too terse. It could be expanded to include parameter context without being overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, 5 parameters, and absence of annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits critical information about target specification, port, confirmation, and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (login, required target, http_port, name_type, confirmation_token). The agent has no information about what these parameters mean or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Reboot' and the resource 'SteamOS device'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools which cover ADB, debugging, and other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected), or alternatives. For a reboot tool, context about safe usage is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description states the action but does not disclose side effects, required state (e.g., device discoverability), or what happens if the key already exists. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is too brief and lacks structure. It could be improved by front-loading the core action but is not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, 1 required, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide enough information for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (target, login, http_port, name_type, confirmation_token). The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('register/pair') and the resource ('this machine's Devkit SSH key with a SteamOS device'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that involve ADB, discovery, or other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discover_devices' or 'ensure_ssh_key'. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Inspect', implying read-only behavior, but does not confirm lack of side effects, required permissions, or any other behavioral context. The agent cannot infer safety or prerequisites from this description alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, relatively short sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be restructured for better scannability, e.g., by using bullet points for the list of inspected items. Overall, it is acceptably concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description is too brief. It does not cover prerequisites, usage context, or the tool's place among siblings. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still fails to make the tool's role clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. While names like 'target' and 'http_port' hint at their purpose, crucial details (e.g., what 'name_type' with default 'guess' means) are missing. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool inspects 'Steam Frame automation surfaces' and enumerates specific items (tracking datasets, CEF ports, Lepton, input tools), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects. However, the phrase 'automation surfaces' is somewhat vague and could be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like steam_frame_cef_pages or steam_frame_tracking_datasets offer more specialized inspections, but the description does not explain the tool's role as a comprehensive overview or specify when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only states that it 'enumerates... exposed on debug ports.' It does not disclose read-only vs. mutating behavior, error handling, or what happens if no pages exist. A score of 3 is generous because the basic action is clear, but transparency is lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical details. Being short is not beneficial if it fails to inform the agent. A score of 3 balances conciseness with the need for more substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema description, no annotations, and an output schema not elaborated, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters or what the output contains, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters (target, login, ports, http_port, name_type). The description does not explain what each parameter does, leaving the agent with no guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Enumerate') and identifies the resource ('Steam/SteamVR CEF DevTools pages'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like 'open_cef_console' and 'steam_frame_web_ports' by focusing on enumerating pages vs. opening or listing ports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on when not to use it. The description is purely functional without situational clues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list recent files', which implies a read-only operation but omits details like sorting, filtering, pagination, or the meaning of 'recent'. No side effects are noted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 13 words, which is concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points, examples) and could benefit from organized parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters. It fails to explain parameter semantics, default values, or typical usage patterns, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the 7 parameters (limit, login, target, pattern, http_port, name_type, include_tmp). The agent cannot infer how to use these parameters from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it lists recent Steam, SteamVR, OpenXR, Lepton, trace, and dump files. It is clear about the resource and action, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like lepton_artifacts_manifest or sync_logs, which also deal with file listings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., adb_logcat for live logs, sync_logs for transferring logs). There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Sync' is ambiguous—could mean copy or move—and there is no mention of side effects, permissions, or network requirements. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly longer to include essential parameter context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description lacks crucial details about 7 parameters, no annotations, and no explanation of the sync behavior. Extremely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for parameter details. It only describes the overall action, ignoring all 7 parameters (target, local_folder, etc.). Fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (sync), resources (Steam logs, SteamVR logs, /tmp/dumps), and destination (local folder). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sync_devkit_utils, which also sync logs, lacking specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as steam_logs_manifest or sync_tracking_dataset. The description does not provide context prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a non-destructive read operation (downloading), but provides no details on authentication, rate limits, overwrite behavior, or the impact on the source. With no annotations, the tool's behavioral implications are vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, but its brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main action, but could be expanded minimally to cover key aspects without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema shown, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter or the tool's overall workflow, leaving the agent without sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (target, output_folder, login, http_port, name_type, dataset_path). The agent receives no guidance on required vs optional fields or their meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'download' and the resource 'recorded Steam Frame tracking dataset directory', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'tracking_dataset_analyze' or 'sync_logs' by focusing on downloading a directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to sync logs or analyze datasets. There is no context on prerequisites, required device state, or common scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully explain behavior. It states 'connect' and 'port forwarding' but does not disclose what the connection entails (e.g., whether it establishes a persistent tunnel, requires device authorization, or affects existing ADB connections). The specifics of the port forwarding mechanism are not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence and 13 words, which is concise. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the key action but lacks the completeness needed for a tool with two parameters and no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, an output schema (not described), and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to cover return values, preconditions, or the effect of the operation. The user or agent lacks critical context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the two parameters (local_port, remote_port). The user is left to guess their meaning and purpose. Even defaults are provided in the schema, but without explanation, the agent cannot determine how to appropriately set these ports.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Connect', the specific resource 'Steam Frame's Lepton Android container', and the method 'through USB ADB port forwarding'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'adb_connect_lepton_wifi' which uses a different connection method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'adb_connect_lepton_wifi' or when to avoid it. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a connected USB device or having ADB set up, and does not mention any conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies device state, requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. 'Collect' implies read-only but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. No wasted words, but could be structured to separate purpose and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a diagnostic tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the output contains, how to interpret the collected data, or any prerequisites like device connectivity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain the purpose of any parameter (e.g., package_name, serial, log_lines). The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool collects focused app state, OBB, Steam env, and log highlights. It specifies the resource and action, but does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like lepton_logcat or adb_bugreport.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or limitations relative to siblings like lepton_context_inspect or steam_logs_manifest.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool requires confirmation and is non-interactive, implying potential destructiveness, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or return value characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with two short sentences, containing no extraneous words. It is front-loaded but could benefit from additional structure, such as separating usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description is insufficient. It lacks information about outputs, how to get a confirmation token, and edge cases for a generic command executor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about the four parameters (serial, command, timeout, confirmation_token). Schema description coverage is 0%, and while parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the confirmation_token parameter is unclear and the description fails to explain how to obtain or use it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool runs an arbitrary non-interactive adb shell command. The verb 'Run' and resource 'adb shell command' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like adb_logcat or adb_install_apk, though the term 'arbitrary' implies generic use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only mentions that the tool always requires confirmation, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as specific adb commands for specialized tasks. There is no explicit context for when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the action (set property and reverse port) but omits side effects, permissions, error conditions, or whether the operation is safe. For a tool that modifies device settings, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single 12-word sentence is highly concise and front-loaded. However, it omits important details, so conciseness trades off against completeness. Still, it avoids unnecessary verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., device connected), state changes, or failure modes. With three optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (port, serial, tracehost). While 'tracehost' and reverse tcp:1981 are mentioned, the default values and meaning of 'serial' are unclear. The description adds minimal value over the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the specific resources: 'Unreal's Android tracehost property' and 'reverse tcp:1981'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like adb_forward or adb_reverse by its focus on Unreal Insights setup, though it could be more explicit about its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., adb_forward, adb_reverse). The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or limitations, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description only says 'List', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions needed, or behavior beyond a basic listing. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but insufficiently informative given the tool's complexity. It could include more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters (1 required) and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It doesn't summarize the output (though schema exists) or mention prerequisites like having devkit-game set up. Sibling tools suggest a workflow, but the description lacks integration context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type). The purpose 'list titles' does not clarify what 'target' or 'http_port' mean.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List devkit titles installed under ~/devkit-game', which is a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings like delete_title, upload_title, and run_title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide context for typical usage scenarios or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Inspect', implying a read operation, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or the nature of the output beyond what the output schema might provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded but could include more detail without significant bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the tool's return values are addressed elsewhere. However, the description lacks context on parameter details, usage scenarios, and behavioral aspects, making it incomplete for a tool with one parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single optional parameter steamvr_root with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's meaning or usage, failing to add value beyond the schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool inspects local SteamVR automation surfaces, mentioning specific examples like null driver and Frame controller profiles. This provides a clear purpose, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool steam_frame_automation_inventory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as steam_frame_automation_inventory. There is no context about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'capture and download', which implies it is a read operation. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, prerequisites, or what happens to existing files. Lacks detail for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is very concise. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, output schema), it is under-informative. Not all relevant information fits.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and 9 parameters, the description does not explain return values, parameter roles, or special behavior. It is too minimal for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about any of the 9 parameters. The agent is left with no guidance on what 'target', 'output_folder', or optional fields mean.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb 'Capture' and resource 'SteamOS screenshot', and the action 'download it locally'. Among sibling tools, none other explicitly handles screenshots, so it distinguishes well.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The single sentence provides no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It labels the action 'read-only inventory' indicating no mutation, but omits specifics on scope, side effects, or conditions (e.g., whether a device connection is needed).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with purpose, but it leaves critical information missing (e.g., parameter details, usage constraints). Conciseness does not compensate for under-informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and only an output schema hinted, the description fails to provide enough context for correct usage. Missing details on 'bounded' scope and parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), yet the description adds no explanation of the four parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type). Users must infer their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool collects a bounded read-only inventory of specific components (Steam Frame OS, Lepton, services, DBus, binary strings). The verb 'collect' and resource 'inventory' are precise, and the component list distinguishes it from sibling inventory tools like 'steam_frame_automation_inventory'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'bounded read-only', it lacks context about prerequisites, target state, or selection criteria relative to many similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral cues. It indicates a read operation (non-destructive) but does not disclose permissions, error handling, or side effects when buses are unavailable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the purpose of parameters like 'login', 'target', or 'http_port', and does not describe the output format despite an output schema existing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters aside from a hint at 'bus'. The schema has 5 parameters (bus, login, target, http_port, name_type), but the description adds no semantic value to them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('SteamOS Manager properties'), and specifies the sources ('user bus, system bus, or both'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely perform other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'steam_frame_manager_interfaces' or 'steam_frame_dbus_manager' may be related, but no context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'inspect', implying read-only access, but does not clarify whether the tool requires special permissions, whether it is safe to run repeatedly, or what side effects (if any) occur. The lack of detail limits the agent's ability to assess risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the core action. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. Still, it earns a high conciseness score because it wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and 4 parameters (1 required), the description offers almost no context. It does not explain what the output contains, how parameters affect behavior, or what 'known ports' means. The agent would need to rely entirely on the output schema and parameter defaults, which is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema has no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameter names (target, login, http_port, name_type) or explain their roles. Without this, the agent cannot correctly populate or understand the parameters beyond their types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool inspects specific resources (Steam Frame web/debug/listener ports and devkit HTTP properties). The verb 'inspect' and the resource are well-defined, and the tool is distinct from its many steam_frame_* siblings such as steam_frame_cef_pages or steam_frame_automation_inventory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar tools, nor does it mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description only states actions without disclosing side effects (e.g., file overwriting, destructive operations), permissions, or behavioral traits. With 20 parameters, many affecting behavior, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence (12 words). It is concise, but the lack of additional structure or detail makes it less usable. Still, it earns its place by stating the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 20 parameters, 3 required, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It omits explanations of key parameters, output schema, and usage scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description adds no information about any of the 20 parameters (e.g., what 'delete_extraneous' or 'verify_checksums' do). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (upload, update, register/update) and the resource (title folder, runtime settings, Steam shortcut). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_titles, delete_title, run_title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use upload_title vs run_title). No context about prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states it performs validation, which is a read operation, but lacks details on side effects (should be none), authorization needs, or error behavior. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but at the expense of clarity. It lacks structure like sections or bullet points, and while front-loaded, it is too sparse to be fully helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what validation entails (e.g., checks performed, expected naming conventions). It is incomplete for a validation tool, leaving ambiguity about input requirements and output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It mentions 'folder' and 'expected OBB filename/layout' but does not clarify that 'local_dir' is the folder path and 'apk_name' is the optional APK filename. It adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it validates a Steam Frame Unity APK+OBB folder and expected OBB filename/layout. It uses a specific verb 'validate' and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like adb_install_apk or inspect_android_apk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_android_apk or stage_android_obb_layout. It doesn't specify prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Install or replace' without explaining prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected), effects (e.g., app overwriting), or error scenarios. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from structured detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and 4 parameters, the description is insufficient. It omits output/return value information (despite an output schema existing) and lacks context about device state or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation of parameters. It does not clarify the role of 'serial', 'replace', or 'extra_args', leaving the agent without guidance beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Install or replace') and the resource ('APK in the connected Lepton Android container'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like adb_shell or adb_logcat by specifying APK installation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to use install vs replace. The description implies usage for APK operations but provides no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. It only states the reporting action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it omits important details that could be included without much bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameters or provide complete context. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (login, target, context, http_port, name_type). It only mentions 'Lepton context' but not as a parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it reports existing ADB/GDB/LLDB targets and listener state for a Lepton context. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like adb_devices or lepton_debug_plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or other behavioral traits beyond 'Read'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured with explicit parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists, the description does not mention what the output contains or its structure. For a read tool, return value info is important but omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the four parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type). The description adds no value beyond the schema's raw structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('pidbridge unit and socket state'), and provides a unique benefit ('without speaking the private socket protocol'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which mention pidbridge.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'start or stop' without detailing server lifecycle, side effects, or network implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. However, it is too terse given the tool's complexity, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema details in description. Missing prerequisites, return values, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no parameter information. The five parameters (login, target, enabled, http_port, name_type) are unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool toggles the RenderDoc replay server on the device, using a specific verb ('set') and resource ('RenderDoc replay server'). It distinguishes from sibling tools, as none others mention RenderDoc replay.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to start vs stop, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description lacks context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation, which is non-destructive, but missing details about authorization, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is minimal and does not add substantial behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core function. However, given the complexity of parameters, a bit more structure (e.g., a brief sentence on output) could improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters (1 required) and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles or usage context. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for return value explanation, but input semantics are entirely missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The agent receives no help understanding the purpose of 'login', 'target', 'http_port', 'name_type', or 'include_system'. The description adds zero value for parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Read') and the resource ('SteamOS Manager interface/method/property/signal inventory'), with an additional note about including Jobs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'steam_frame_dev_inventory' or 'steam_frame_automation_inventory'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without any context on prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'forward' but does not explain side effects (e.g., port binding, potential conflicts), required permissions, or behavior on failure. This is insufficient for a complete understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and key parameters. It is concise and to the point, though it could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists but unknown), the description is too brief. It does not explain the output format, success/error indications, or how the tool behaves in various scenarios (e.g., port already in use). The output schema might provide some of this, but without seeing it, the description alone is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that local_port and remote_port are tcp ports, but does not describe the serial parameter or provide formatting constraints, valid ranges, or examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's type information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: forward host port to device port using adb forward. It specifies the verb 'Forward', the resource 'host tcp:LOCAL_PORT to device tcp:REMOTE_PORT', and the mechanism 'adb forward'. This distinguishes it from siblings like adb_reverse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adb_reverse or adb_shell. The description does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use it. A score of 2 reflects the lack of usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes the 'without opening in a debugger' aspect, implying a safe operation, but given no annotations, it fails to disclose specifics like data source, permissions required, or performance impact. The burden falls on the description, which is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence. Efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output (though output schema exists), inputs, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning or usage, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (Steam Frame native coredumps), and a key qualifier (without opening in a debugger). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_titles or steam_frame_cef_pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., debugging tools that open coredumps). No prerequisites or context are provided, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of conveying behavioral traits. The description only states the command to run, with no mention of side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, or output format beyond JSON. This is insufficient for an AI agent to assess risk or guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that captures the essential action. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with no descriptions and an output schema that is not described, the tool lacks essential context. The description does not explain what the target is, prerequisites (e.g., device connection), or how the output schema relates to the JSON output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning neither schema nor the tool description explains the meaning of login, target, http_port, or name_type. The description does not add any semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the command run ('steamos-get-status --json') and the resource (the device). It clearly differentiates the purpose from sibling tools that perform other operations like bugreport, logcat, or device diagnostics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Sibling tools include other status/diagnostic tools (e.g., deckard_power_status, native_adbd_status), but the description does not clarify when get_steamos_status is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only lists resolution methods but fails to mention failure modes, side effects (e.g., caching, network calls), or whether the tool modifies state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, missing parameter explanations and behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not referenced, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the resolution result, error handling, or how parameters interact, leaving significant gaps for agent selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only addresses the 'target' parameter implicitly. The remaining parameters (login, http_port, name_type, refresh_properties) are unexplained, leaving the agent unable to use them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'SteamOS Devkit target', and specifies the resolution methods (service name, hostname, IP address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'discover_devices' or 'register_device'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It merely implies usage when a target identifier is available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the core function. It does not state whether the operation is purely read-only, if authentication is required, or if there are side effects. This leaves the agent guessing about safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly improved by including brevity and good structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives the overall purpose but lacks details about parameters and usage context. An output schema exists, so return values are likely covered there. For a simple tool, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'kind' with default 'full', but the description does not mention it or explain its meaning. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter documentation in the description, the agent has no understanding of how to use the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns JSON templates for specific script types (launch, ADB, CEF UI, tracking capture, future pose replay). It uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource 'templates'. The tool's purpose is distinct from sibling tools like steam_frame_cef_pages or steam_frame_automation_plan, which focus on different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or excluded use cases. Given the large number of sibling tools, explicit usage context would be beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only through the verb 'Read', but does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. No additional context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and includes a technical implementation detail ('using aapt dump badging').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 parameter) and has an output schema, which covers return values. However, the description could mention expected output format or post-conditions. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no detail about the single parameter 'apk_path'. It does not specify format, constraints, or examples, leaving ambiguity for an AI agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (read metadata) and the resource (APK file), and specifies the exact tool used (aapt dump badging). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_install_apk or lepton_apk_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as lepton_apk_info or other APK inspection tools. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool lists existing artifacts but does not disclose any side effects, read-only nature, or other behaviors. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is efficient and without unnecessary words, though slightly underspecified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or provide enough context for the 7 parameters (none described). The agent would lack crucial information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not mention any parameters or their meanings. The description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving the agent with no guidance on required or optional parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (Lepton perfetto/strace/debug artifacts on device). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lepton_debug_plan and lepton_logcat by specifying artifact types and the location (on device).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide context on prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the need for confirmation but does not address other important behaviors such as required privileges, session handling, error output, or whether the command runs synchronously. The single behavioral trait is useful but insufficient for a potentially dangerous tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters) and potential risk, it is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of missing critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (indicated by context), the description does not explain return values. Combined with no parameter documentation and sparse behavioral disclosure, the description is inadequate for a tool that executes arbitrary commands, especially when sibling tools are more specialized.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail; it only mentions 'SSH command' but does not explain the purpose or constraints of any of the 6 parameters (e.g., target, login, command, http_port, name_type, confirmation_token).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Run an arbitrary SSH command on the device', specifying both the verb ('Run') and resource ('arbitrary SSH command'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are device-specific (e.g., adb_*) or task-specific (e.g., reboot_device).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes 'Always requires confirmation', which provides context about required user action. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites. The siblings suggest many specialized tools, but no guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether existing files are overwritten, required permissions, or if the operation is destructive. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but fails to disclose side effects or safety considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with 12 words, extremely concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less informative than it could be while still being efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description does not mention return values or behavior. With four parameters and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete for a sync tool, failing to specify what 'target' refers to or how the sync occurs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (login, target, http_port, name_type), leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Sync) and the specific resource (Valve's devkit-utils helper scripts to ~/devkit-utils on the device). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sync_logs and sync_tracking_dataset by specifying the exact scripts and destination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when the devkit-utils need updating. The usage is implied (to sync helper scripts), but no exclusions or context for when to avoid it are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description conveys basic behavior: it uses mDNS and can include cached devices. However, it lacks details on side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes, which are important for an exploration/discovery tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence effectively communicates the core function. However, adding brief parameter context would improve without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the discovery method and caching option but omits parameter semantics and usage context, which are necessary for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. The meaning of 'cached' or the impact of 'timeout_seconds' is not clarified, leaving the agent uninformed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (discover), resource (SteamOS Devkit devices), and method (mDNS). It distinguishes from sibling tools like adb_devices or register_device by specifying the discovery mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where alternatives like adb_devices might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral aspects, but it only says 'connect' without disclosing potential side effects, requirements, or failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but under-specified for a tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions. It could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no complexity), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. An output schema exists but is not detailed in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify parameters. It does not explain 'host' or 'port' beyond the defaults, leaving ambiguity about expected values (e.g., IP vs hostname).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Connect' and the target 'Steam Frame's Lepton Android container over Wi-Fi', distinguishing it from siblings like 'adb_connect_lepton_usb' which uses USB.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for Wi-Fi connection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing keys), idempotency, or required permissions. The tool's behavior under different conditions (e.g., key already exists) is not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool has no parameters and low complexity, the description lacks context such as where the SSH key is stored, whether it is used for authentication to the devkit, or if it is a prerequisite for other tools. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but more context would improve clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% by default, placing the baseline at 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool creates or repairs a local SteamOS Devkit SSH key, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools, but the dual action 'create or repair' is slightly ambiguous regarding when each applies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other devkit tools like sync_devkit_utils or register_device. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description discloses the key safety trait: no device modification. However, it does not describe behavior on validation failure, success, or what the output is. For a validation tool, more detail on return status or error conditions would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, front-loaded sentence achieves direct communication. No unnecessary words. However, given the tool's complexity, a slightly longer description could add value without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits any information about return values, usage contexts, or parameter relationships. With 19 parameters and zero schema documentation, the description is too minimal to support correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 19 parameters. The agent must infer meanings from parameter names alone (e.g., 'local_dir', 'gameid', 'skip_newer_files'), which is insufficient for correct use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Validate a title upload plan without touching the device.' Verb 'validate' and resource 'title upload plan' are specific. The phrase 'without touching the device' distinguishes it from the sibling 'upload_title' and implies a safe, dry-run operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for validation before actual upload by noting 'without touching the device,' but does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives like 'upload_title.' No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or has any side effects. The term 'summarize' implies read-only but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, directly conveying the tool's function without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input schema (1 required param) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's context, though it could mention expected output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the single parameter 'dataset_path' by specifying it accepts a directory or zip file of a local SteamVR tracking dataset, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Summarize' and the resource 'local SteamVR tracking dataset directory or zip after download', making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like sync_tracking_dataset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as before or after syncing, or how it relates to other tracking-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states it lists and parses output, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects or disclose any behavioral nuances like error handling or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and functionality. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema (context indicates it exists), the description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's basic function. It could benefit from mentioning common use cases or relationship to sibling tools, but it is not incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it is clear about what the tool does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action (list) and resource (ADB devices) and mentions parsing the '-l' output, which is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other ADB tools like adb_bugreport or adb_connect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to prefer adb_devices over other device discovery tools like discover_devices or native_adbd_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states inspection and printing, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or output format. Since it is read-only and diagnostic, transparency is adequate but could be better.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could elaborate on what 'connection notes' are or the output format, but an output schema exists to fill that gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 is appropriate. Description does not need to add parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool inspects local ADB availability and prints Steam Frame Lepton connection notes. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like adb_devices and adb_connect_lepton_*.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. The purpose implies it's for diagnosing ADB setup, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. Sibling tools exist for connection actions, but guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the boundary condition: omission disconnects all TCP targets. However, the first case says 'one ADB target' without specifying TCP-only, which could be ambiguous regarding USB targets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and parameter behavior. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, the description covers the essential behavior. It doesn't mention potential errors or output, but an output schema exists. Minor gap: no note about successful disconnection feedback.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant value by explaining that omitting the target disconnects all TCP targets. It implies the target is a string identifier, but could specify the format (e.g., IP:port).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Disconnect' and the resource 'ADB target', and distinguishes between disconnecting a single target or all TCP targets when omitted. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like adb_devices or adb_forward.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when disconnecting ADB targets) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide usage context. With many sibling ADB tools, more guidance would be beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'Inspect' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. No annotations exist to contradict this, and the description adds sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, concise sentence with no wasted words. Front-loads the action and scope effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what is inspected. Missing details about output format are expected to be covered by the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no additional parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it inspects local SteamOS Devkit Client, tools, dependencies, and state paths. It's specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like adb_doctor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, usage is implied but not differentiated from alternative diagnostic tools among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-steamos-devkit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/elliotttate/mcp-steamos-devkit/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/elliotttate/mcp-steamos-devkit)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-steamos-devkit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/elliotttate/mcp-steamos-devkit/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/elliotttate/mcp-steamos-devkit)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/elliotttate/mcp-steamos-devkit'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server