Storm Net Session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds only a vague scope statement ('send/recv/tick surface and Steam imports') and says nothing about what the build/limit/seeds controls do or what gets returned.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so it is not bloated, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — the one sentence does not convey the tool's operation or scope.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with four undocumented optional parameters and no usage guidance, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only compensating factor is the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the four parameters (build, limit, seeds, include_imports). With zero coverage, the description must carry the burden, and it contributes nothing about their meaning, format, or defaults.

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 is a bare noun phrase ('Steam/net-session send/recv/tick surface and Steam imports') with no verb stating what the tool actually does — inspect, list, resolve, extract? It gestures at a domain but never commits to an operation, so an agent cannot tell whether it retrieves code, lists symbols, or exports data. It is marginally more than a restatement of the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing among the many siblings (storm_xrefs, storm_symbolize, storm_find, etc.). The only usable signal is the implied domain of net-session/Steam code, which an agent must infer.

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