Steam status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key trait: 'Never fails - it reports problems instead of throwing,' which tells the agent how to interpret failures. It does not fully detail data source semantics, but the failure-mode guarantee adds genuine transparency.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the second states a critical invariant, and the third gives a concrete usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity status tool with a single optional parameter, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool reports, how errors behave, and when to call it. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the reported categories well enough to set expectations.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the input schema already explains it fully, including the live-connection behavior and the ~2s cost. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names exactly what is reported: Steam client state, debugger reachability, usable data sources, and available capabilities. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools that manage library entries, collections, or cache state.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first whenever a Steam operation is unexpectedly unavailable.' It does not name alternatives or say when not to call it, but the directive is clear enough to route an agent to this tool at the right time.

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