get_recently_played

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. It describes a read operation ('Get') but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get games played by a user in the last two weeks') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, no output schema, and a simple input schema with full coverage, the description provides basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, error cases). It's minimally adequate for a read-only tool but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured metadata, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 fully documents both parameters (steam_id and count). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'last two weeks' timeframe or how it interacts with parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('games played by a user'), and specifies the time constraint ('in the last two weeks'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_owned_games' by focusing on recent activity rather than ownership, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage context (retrieving recent gameplay) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_owned_games' or 'get_game_stats'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage guidance at an implied level rather than explicit.

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