get_owned_games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the profile's game details must be public, an API key is required, and the return includes both a ranked table and library-wide totals. This is meaningful supplementary detail that helps an agent anticipate failures and response shape.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by key requirements and practical usage tips. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover read-only safety, the description is largely complete. It covers prerequisites (public profile, API key), output characteristics (ranked table, totals), and parameter usage. It could mention edge cases like invalid steam_id or empty libraries, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by linking sort='recent' to the user intent 'what have they been playing lately?' and by noting limit controls response size. It also ties playtime ordering back to the 'total playtime per game' concept, adding practical value beyond the 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 first sentence states the specific action and resource: 'List the games a player owns, with total playtime per game.' It also adds concrete output expectations (ranked table, library-wide totals), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_recently_played_games.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (listing owned games with playtime) and offers concrete guidance for parameter usage: use sort='recent' for 'what have they been playing lately?' and limit to control response size. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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