get_app_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is read-only (get) and describes the returned data fields and summary. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. 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 concise, with three short sentences that quickly convey the tool's purpose, output, and a key parameter. The most critical information (purpose) is front-loaded. However, there is no title, and the structure could be slightly improved by separating the parameter explanation more clearly.

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, 0% schema description, and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what the tool does and what it returns (including a summary). However, it lacks explanations for the limit and app_id parameters, and does not mention potential constraints like authentication or rate limits. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining the review_type parameter: 'all' (default), 'positive', or 'negative'. However, it does not explain app_id (though implied by the tool's purpose) or limit (what it limits). The description partially fills the gap but not fully.

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's purpose: 'Get user reviews for a Steam game.' It specifies the resource (reviews) and action (get), and lists what is returned (review text, recommendation, playtime, helpfulness votes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_game_details or get_owned_games, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use the tool—when you need user reviews for a specific Steam game. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with get_game_details, which might also include review summaries. The guidance is minimal and left to inference.

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