steam_frame_automation_inventory

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.