status

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

The annotation already declares this is a read-only operation, so the safety burden is low. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the tool reports in each mode, including statuses, translations, and a recommended next action.

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 brief and front-loaded with the most important routing information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the two modes and the path argument.

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?

With only one optional parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide when and how to call the tool. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema already exists.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so precisely: `path` is defined as the game folder containing steamworks.yaml, relative to the workspace root, and the omitted-path behavior is fully described.

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 two modes: without `path` it lists games in the workspace, with `path` it reports release progress, values, store text/translations, and the next action. This goes beyond restating the name, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as `compare_games` or `launch_watch`.

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 opening 'Start here' gives clear entry-point guidance, and the path/no-path distinction tells the agent exactly when to use each mode. However, it does not name alternative tools or describe when not to use this one.

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