get_achievements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('Get achievements') without detailing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage, as it leaves the agent unaware of operational 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the core functionality.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or error handling, nor does it explain the return values or format. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('steam_id' and 'app_id') with details like optionality and patterns. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or providing usage examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a player's achievements for a specific game'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'get_achievement_summary' or 'get_badge_progress', which might also relate to achievements or progress tracking.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_achievement_summary' or other achievement-related siblings. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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