steam_get_recently_played

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output limit (up to 20 games), the data points (recent and total playtime), and the error condition for private profiles. It also mentions the accepted input formats. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, and the exact return structure (field names) since there is no output schema.

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, each adding unique information: the primary action, input formats, and an output/error note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant or filler content. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: timeframe, output limit, playtime metrics, and private profile error. It is missing the exact return format and auth/rate-limit info, but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete. The absence of an output schema makes the return structure a notable gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates 'SteamID64 or vanity URL' for steamid and 'up to 20' for count, which are already in the schema descriptions. No extra context or usage tips for parameters are provided.

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 the specific action: 'Returns games played by a Steam user in the last 2 weeks.' This clearly identifies the resource (recently played games) and differentiates from sibling tools like steam_get_owned_games (full library) and steam_get_current_players (current online status). The output focus on playtime and time window is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool: to retrieve games played in the last 2 weeks with recent and total playtime. It also specifies the input format (SteamID64 or vanity URL) and behavior with private profiles. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for a full game library or friend lists.

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