get_player_summary

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 what data is returned but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading). For a tool accessing external API data with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and key return fields. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return data. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention authentication needs or API constraints. The description is minimally complete but leaves behavioral aspects uncovered that would help an agent use it correctly in production scenarios.

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% with one parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the steam_id format, the STEAM_ID env var fallback, or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description.

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 ('Steam player profile information') with specific fields listed (name, avatar, status, current game). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_player_bans or get_friends_list by focusing on profile summary rather than bans, friends, or other data types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_steam_level or similar profile-related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like get_player_bans (for ban status) or get_friends_list (for social connections), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint comes from the schema's optional parameter note about STEAM_ID env var, but this isn't in the description itself.

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