steamdt_get_wear_by_asmd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes the rate limit, which is a helpful constraint, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or if it has side effects. The safety profile is under-specified.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey the core purpose and an important usage constraint (rate limit). Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It fails to explain the output format (e.g., wear value as a float), possible error conditions, or how the ASMD parameters relate to the result. For a tool with 5 parameters and none required, more guidance is needed.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter having a brief label (e.g., 'ASMD 参数 S'). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but offers no additional clarity.

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 queries item wear degree via ASMD parameters and explicitly mentions it's an alternative to the inspect link method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like steamdt_get_wear_by_inspect_url.

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 indicates when to use (when ASMD parameters are available instead of inspect URL) and mentions the rate limit (36,000 times/hour), providing useful usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.

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