get_achievement_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves a summary but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs (implied by steam_id), data freshness, or what 'summary' entails (e.g., aggregated stats vs. list). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential API constraints.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. It appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a tool with potential authentication and data scope nuances, more context would be beneficial to compensate for missing structured data.

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 schema fully documents both parameters (steam_id and app_ids). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the scope ('all games or specific games'), which is already covered by the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'summary of achievement progress', specifying scope 'across all games or specific games'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_achievements' (detailed achievements) and 'get_recently_played' (recent games list), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct from similar tools.

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 usage for achievement progress summaries, with context from the input schema suggesting optional filtering by app_ids or defaulting to recently played games. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_achievements' or 'get_recently_played', and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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