find_synergies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read-style lookup based on Scryfall community synergy tags, which is useful. However, it does not mention limitations such as empty results for obscure cards, dependency on external tag quality, or what happens when a card is not found.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable method context without repeating schema details or adding filler.

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 definition and schema together are sufficient for basic invocation: card_name is required, and limit, format, and color_identity have clear schema descriptions. However, there is no output schema and no description of the return structure beyond the limit parameter's 'per theme' hint, leaving some post-call expectations implicit.

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 each parameter already has clear semantic documentation including defaults, allowed ranges, and examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Find cards that synergize with a given Magic: The Gathering card.' The added detail about analyzing mechanics and using Scryfall's community synergy tags clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_cards or find_similar, which target general search or similarity rather than synergy.

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 intended use case is clear: when an agent has a specific MTG card and needs complementary/synergy cards. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide tool selection.

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