edhrec_commander_staples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool shows synergy scores vs. generic popularity, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return format or pagination, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no unnecessary words. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains the output includes cards, synergy scores, and inclusion rates. It covers the tool's behavior for a query tool with 4 parameters. Missing details about output structure (e.g., categories) are not critical.

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% with all parameters described. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions commander_name implicitly but no additional details on limit, category, or response_format.

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 explicitly states the tool gets the most-played cards for a commander with synergy scores and inclusion rates. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like edhrec_card_synergy by focusing on commander staples rather than synergy for a specific card.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for commander staples but does not mention when not to use it or compare to similar tools like edhrec_card_synergy or commander_overview.

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