Get Game Reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data returned (score, counts, text) but omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key output details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and return type well. It could be improved by mentioning that count controls the number of reviews and noting the read-only nature, but it is largely sufficient for agent understanding.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (app_id, count with min/max, filter with enum). The description adds contextual meaning by explaining the output format, but it does not elaborate on parameter values or how they affect results beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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 retrieves reviews for a Steam game and specifies the output includes a sentiment summary (score, positive/negative counts) and individual review text. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like get_game_details or get_game_news.

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 implies the tool should be used when needing reviews with sentiment analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_game_details. No exclusionary criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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