steamdt_special_styles

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it 'gets' a table, implying a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or whether it modifies data. The lack of explicit read-only or safety indication weakens 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple parameterless tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and use case. However, it does not describe the return format or structure of the comparison table, which would improve completeness.

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 are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by explaining the table's content and use case, exceeding the baseline of 3 for high coverage. With no parameters, the baseline is raised to 4 as per guidelines.

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 retrieves a CS2 item special style comparison table, listing specific styles like tiers, stages, Doppler phases, gems, etc. It also mentions its use in analyzing paintseed and special style fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other data like base info, prices, or wear.

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 implies usage for analyzing paintseed and special style fields but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its 12 siblings. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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