search_library

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like operation (search/filter) but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no matches are found. The description is too brief to be transparent about operational characteristics.

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, clear sentence that covers the tool's purpose and filter dimensions. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words. However, it lacks any structural elements (e.g., separate lines for behavior or examples) that could improve scannability.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description only covers what the tool does, not what it returns or critical edge cases (e.g., conflicting filters, pagination default limit). While adequate for simple use, it leaves gaps that could confuse an agent, especially given the absence of annotations.

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%, and each parameter has a description in the input schema. The description rephrases the filter criteria (name, playtime range, unplayed status) but adds no new semantic constraints or contextual guidance beyond the schema. It meets the baseline for a high-coverage 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 clearly states the tool searches and filters the Steam library by name, playtime range, or unplayed status. It specifies the verb ('Search and filter') and resource ('your Steam library'), and the filter criteria distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_library' which likely returns all items. However, it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'returns a list of matching games') to avoid ambiguity.

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 its siblings (get_game_details, get_library, get_recently_played, refresh_library). It does not explain when filtering is beneficial, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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