get_owned_games

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 mentions pagination behavior ('Use limit/offset for pagination'), which is useful. However, it doesn't cover other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), rate limits, authentication needs (though hinted by steam_id parameter), error handling, or response format. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing usage guidance for pagination. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but lacks details on authentication (steam_id usage), response structure (playtime statistics format), error cases, or how it differs from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short of being fully comprehensive.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying pagination usage for limit/offset but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 games owned by a player with playtime statistics.' It specifies the resource (games owned by a player) and includes additional functionality (playtime statistics). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recently_played' or 'get_wishlist,' which also retrieve game-related data but with different scopes.

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 guidance by mentioning 'Use limit/offset for pagination,' which helps with implementation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_recently_played' (for recent games) or 'get_wishlist' (for wishlisted games). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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