deck_analysis

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds transparency about backend usage (Scryfall bulk data, API fallback, Spellbook, EDHREC) and graceful degradation, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 three paragraphs: a clear summary, backend details, and parameter explanation. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, backend strategy, graceful degradation, and key parameter details. It adequately informs the agent about behavior, though output format is not explicitly described.

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 100%. The description adds significant meaning to 'declared_categories' by explaining its purpose, syntax, and drift measurement, complementing the schema description. Other parameters are standard with sufficient schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Full decklist health check — mana curve, colors, combos, bracket, budget, synergy,' clearly stating the tool's specific purpose and scope. It lists multiple analytical dimensions, distinguishing it from siblings like deck_validate or commander_overview which are more focused.

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 a comprehensive deck analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks direct comparisons or 'do not use if' guidance, though the description of backends and graceful degradation provides some context.

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