draft_pack_pick

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying the data source (17Lands), the derived stats, and the requirement for 17Lands to be enabled, providing functional 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?

The description is three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, outputs, and prerequisites. No wasted words; each sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description lists the stats returned but does not mention ordering or error handling (e.g., if 17Lands is disabled). However, it is largely complete for an agent to understand inputs and outputs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that current_picks enables color fit analysis and listing specific stats returned (GIH WR, ALSA, IWD), which are not in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond parameter names and types.

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 ranks cards in a draft pack using 17Lands win rate data, listing specific stats (GIH WR, ALSA, IWD) and color fit analysis. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draft_card_ratings by focusing on in-draft pack ranking with current picks.

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 mentions a prerequisite (17Lands enabled) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like draft_card_ratings or draft_signal_read. The context implies it is for in-draft decisions, but lack of direct comparisons reduces clarity.

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