List Steam collections

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses that the tool reads the last state Steam wrote to disk when Steam is closedaddr degraded=true, and explains that dynamic collections are filter-based and therefore read-only. It does not explicitly state that the tool itself has no side effects, but the verb 'List' and absence of mutation language convey that.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and essential details are front-loaded. The parenthetical definition of dynamic is efficient, and every clause contributes either scope, return fields, or behavioral context.

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?

This tool has no output schema Earnings, but the description lists the returned fields and the degraded flag, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive. Both optional parameters are addressed or implied, and the stale-data behavior with Steam closed is explicitly disclosed, making this complete for a listing tool with no required parameters.

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 schema already documents include_system, but include_dynamic has no schema description. The tool description partially compensates by defining what 'dynamic' means (filter-based, read-only), yet it does not explicitly explain how include_dynamic=true/false changes the result set. Thus it adds useful but incomplete parameter context.

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 immediately names the exact action ('List every library collection') and enumerates the fields returned: id, name, game count, dynamic status, and system status. It also distinguishes the two collection categories, making its scope clear and separating it from singular retrieval tools like steam_collection_get.

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 clearly states that it can work with Steam closed by reading the last state from disk cancelled, which is useful context for when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for a single collection use steam_collection_get' or 'to modify collections use the add/remove/replace tools.'

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