steamgrid_get_best_logo

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but it does not clarify what 'best' means (e.g., highest resolution, most downloaded), nor does it mention any edge cases such as requiring at least one of the two IDs. The lack of explicit disclosure about the selection criteria and potential failure modes leaves behavioral transparency at a baseline level.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and object, and every word contributes meaning. This is an example of excellent 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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description leaves gaps: it does not explain which ID (appid vs. gameId) is required or how they relate, nor does it describe the return format (e.g., a URL or image data). Since there is no output schema, the description must convey the expected response, which it fails to do. The absence of annotations also means the agent lacks safety and side-effect context. These gaps make the description minimally complete for a tool with two optional parameters.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (appid and gameId) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters relate or which one takes precedence. Since both are optional, an agent may be confused about whether to provide one, both, or either. The description does not clarify this, so it does not elevate parameter semantics 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 states a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource ('single best transparent logo') from a named source (SteamGridDB). It clearly conveys what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool steamgrid_get_assets, which likely returns multiple assets including logos. The purpose is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that steamgrid_get_assets might be used when multiple logos are needed, nor does it state prerequisites like needing either an appid or gameId. The usage context is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated, so it falls short of clear guidance.

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