select_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the trigger and the exact-count/distinct-card constraint, but does not disclose that this mutates game state, whether the selection is final, what happens on invalid choices, or any turn/error consequences.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Its terseness is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue, but the undefined terms make the sentence slightly opaque.

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 game-state-mutating action with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It does not explain where 'options' and 'count' come from, how card objects are formed, or what the result/state change will be.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description should compensate. It adds 'exactly count distinct' semantics, but references 'options' and 'count' that are not parameters, and gives no explanation of the cards array structure or the required revision beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('select ... cards') and ties the action to a concrete game phase ('pending.kind=cards'). It is distinguishable from siblings like play_cards or draw_card, though 'count' and 'options' are undefined external state references.

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?

It clearly says to use this tool when responding to pending.kind=cards, which is a strong usage trigger. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the phase condition gives practical guidance.

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