build_around

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-ended behavior. The description adds process details: analyzing oracle text, searching for synergies, checking combos, and grouping by role. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences plus a third line. First sentence captures core purpose. Second adds details on analysis and output grouping. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's main function and output grouping. However, it lacks explicit mention of return value format (e.g., 'returns a list of card names grouped by role'). Slightly incomplete but mostly adequate.

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 descriptions cover all parameters fully (100% coverage). The description mentions '1-5 card names' which aligns with the 'cards' parameter but adds no new semantics. Parameters like 'limit', 'budget', 'format', and 'response_format' are adequately described in schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool finds synergistic cards for 1-5 build-around cards, analyzes oracle text, searches for synergies, checks combo potential, and groups by role. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'spellbook_find_combos' and 'edhrec_card_synergy' by focusing on multi-card synergy grouping.

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 building around a core set of cards by stating '1-5 build-around cards' and 'any format', but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. No contrast with similar sibling tools like 'spellbook_find_combos' or 'theme_search'.

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