steam_get_game_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the returned content (achievement names, descriptions, hidden status, icon URLs, count of stats). It does not disclose potential errors or rate limits, but for a simple read-only getter, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, details the output, and ends with a usage tip. Every sentence adds value.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields. It also provides usage context. It is complete for a simple schema retrieval tool, though it does not address edge cases like invalid appids or authentication.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description only mentions accepting a Steam AppID, which adds no new information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the full schema of stats and achievements for a game. It explicitly differentiates itself from player-specific achievement data by noting it is useful before querying such data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like steam_get_achievements.

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 context: it is useful before querying player-specific achievement data. This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. A 4 is appropriate because the context is clear without exclusions.

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