get_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'requires public profile', which adds useful context about authentication needs. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, pagination (implied by 'count' parameter but not explained), or what happens if the profile isn't public. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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: 'Get a player's inventory for any game (requires public profile)'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential context in parentheses. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose and a key constraint. However, for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, it should ideally explain more about the return format or behavior. It's adequate as a starting point but lacks depth for full contextual 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'steam_id' or 'app_id' further). Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 a player's inventory for any game'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('player's inventory'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_csgo_inventory or get_dota2_inventory by mentioning 'any game'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other inventory tools beyond the 'any game' scope.

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 some usage context: 'requires public profile' indicates a prerequisite. It implies when to use this tool (for general inventory retrieval) versus specialized siblings like get_csgo_inventory, but doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. No clear guidance on when not to use it is given.

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