steam_get_current_players

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 plainly states the core output, but does not mention response format, error behavior (e.g., invalid AppID), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The example adds a helpful scale reference but leaves key behavioral details unaddressed.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides value: the core function, the input, a usage guideline, and a concrete example. No wasted 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, input, and use case. It omits the exact response structure (e.g., field name), which could matter to an agent, but the phrase 'number of players' and the example mitigate this. Overall it is nearly complete, with only minor gaps.

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 fully documents the appid parameter with type, pattern, and an example, so description-level detail is redundant. The description does reinforce the example (730 for CS2) and adds typical player count context, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's coverage.

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 verb ('Returns'), the resource ('the number of players currently in-game for a Steam app'), and the required input (AppID). It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle player summaries, friend lists, bans, etc., by focusing specifically on live player counts.

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 clear usage context ('Useful for checking if a game is still active/popular'), which implies when to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, though the sibling tools are distinct enough that this is a minor gap.

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