steam_frame_web_ports

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.