Get Player Bans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the types of bans checked but omits behavioral details like error handling for invalid steam_ids, rate limits, or whether authentication is needed. The fallback to an environment variable is mentioned in the parameter description but not in the main tool description.

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 with no unnecessary words. It conveys the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core functionality and ban types. Could be improved by noting potential errors or privacy requirements, but overall sufficient.

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% (one parameter: steam_id). The description adds the fallback behavior (uses STEAM_ID env var if not provided), which enhances understanding beyond the schema. This justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and the resource 'player's ban status', listing the types of bans (VAC, game, community, trade). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which relate to bans.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but given no other ban-related tools exist in the sibling list, the context implies it's the sole option for ban checks. However, the description does not mention prerequisites such as requiring the player's profile to be public or any fallback behavior beyond the environment variable.

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