steam_frame_manager_interfaces

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.