tarot_drawDraws cards from the deck without repeats, in upright and reversed positions. With a seed the output is deterministic: the same seed gives the same spread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | Зерно генератора для воспроизводимого расклада | |
| count | No | Сколько карт вытянуть, 1–15. По умолчанию 3 | |
| allow_reversed | No | Разрешить перевёрнутые положения, по умолчанию true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses no-repeats, upright/reversed positions, and deterministic seeding, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention what the output looks like, whether it mutates any state, or any side effects. The disclosed behaviors are accurate and add value beyond the schema.
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?
Two sentences with no waste. The core behavior (draws cards without repeats, upright/reversed) is front-loaded, and the determinism note is a valuable addition. 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 simple draw tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior and determinism. However, it doesn't describe the return format, which could be important for an agent to know how to interpret the result. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap but still leaves some ambiguity.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about determinism with seed and no-repeats, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 draws cards from a deck without repeats, in upright and reversed positions, and mentions determinism with a seed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tarot_card and tarot_deck by focusing on drawing a spread, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.
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 generating a spread with optional seed and reversal settings, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tarot_card or tarot_deck. The context is clear enough for a basic use case, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.