Shuffle and deal a custom deck of arbitrary named cards
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draw | No | Draw N cards from the top instead of dealing hands | |
| cards | Yes | Cards in the deck (name + optional quantity) | |
| hands | No | Deal into N hands (default: 1 = draw pile only) | |
| per_hand | No | Cards per hand (default: 5) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions shuffling and dealing, but does not disclose the return format, whether the operation has side effects on an existing deck, or how the draw and hands modes behave beyond the schema. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple execution modes.
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 a single concise sentence that effectively communicates the core behavior without any redundant or irrelevant 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?
The description, combined with the fully described schema, provides enough context for a straightforward dealing operation. It lacks explicit mention of output format or use cases, but the schema covers the parameter variants. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on return value would improve completeness, but the current state is adequate for a simple tool.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (cards, draw, hands, per_hand), so the description adds little beyond the notion of a 'custom deck of arbitrary named cards'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter explanation.
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 shuffles and deals a custom deck of named cards, using an active verb and specific resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like game_deck_create (which creates decks) and coin_flip, which are for other random operations.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as game_deck_create or other random generators. The description only states what the tool does, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear prefixes (chess_, play_, hex_, oracle_, rpg_, ti4_) that separate concerns, but overlap exists between deprecated chess_* tools and the newer play_* equivalents, plus rpg_random_encounter and oracle_encounter both generate encounters. Descriptions help disambiguate, but the redundancy could mislead agents.
Many tools follow a domain_verb_noun pattern (hex_generate_map, play_get_moves, rpg_search_entities), but there are notable exceptions like dice_roll, game_deck_create, jam_status, and random_player_order that mix noun-first and verb-last conventions. The inconsistent ordering makes it harder to predict tool names.
81 tools is excessive even for a broad games toolkit; the deprecated chess_* tools alone add unnecessary bulk. While the scope is wide, the count exceeds practical limits and could be consolidated into fewer, more focused tools.
The toolkit covers a wide variety of game needs: dice, cards, hex maps, chess, RPGs, TI4, jam management, and galleries. Minor gaps like the score tracker lacking a retrieval method and the absence of some lifecycle operations keep it from being perfect, but core workflows are well covered.
