steamworks_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description reinforces 'read-only' and adds that snapshots are 'local' and that pending reflects the unpublished Publish-tab changes, which is useful context, but it doesn't state auth requirements or rate/scope limits beyond the mode split.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each value's gloss earns its place. The formatting is cramped with awkward line breaks inside quoted strings, but there is little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the enum-value glosses cover much of the 'what' surface. But with 0% schema description coverage, the missing 'app'/'path' semantics and the undocumented depots/store_tags values leave the definition short of fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, and it does explain roughly ten of the fourteen 'what' values with helpful parentheticals (e.g. store_assets = image slots filled, checklist linked to gap_report rule). However, it omits 'depots' and 'store_tags' entirely and never explains the 'app' (main/demo/playtest) or required 'path' parameters, leaving the coverage incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb (read-only look/inspect) and resource (Steam state) with scope 'what Steam has now'. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not directly contrast itself with siblings like status or gap_report, which is referenced only in passing.

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?

It implicitly guides usage by splitting the 'what' values into two operating modes (publisher key vs BROWSER mode), which tells the agent which values are available under which auth. However, it never names an alternative tool or states 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.