get_csgo_inventory

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 states the tool uses the 'official API', which hints at reliability but doesn't cover key aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool that likely involves external API calls, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient information about how the tool behaves or what it returns, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the steam_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is strong. It doesn't compensate for any gaps, but none exist, so a score of 4 reflects adequate coverage without extra value.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('player's CS2/CSGO inventory'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the game (CS2/CSGO) versus other inventory tools like get_dota2_inventory or get_tf2_inventory, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from the generic 'get_inventory' sibling, which might be ambiguous.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over other inventory tools (e.g., get_dota2_inventory) or the generic get_inventory, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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