sealed_pool_build

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses 17Lands data when available, evaluates color pairs, and suggests land splits. No contradictions with 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and method.

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 gives a good high-level overview of inputs and expected outputs (1-3 decks, land splits). It could benefit from mentioning the return format or structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to infer behavior.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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 begins with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Build 1-3 decks from a sealed pool'. It specifies the method (card quality and color pair analysis) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like draft-related ones by focusing on sealed pool construction.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (for building decks from a sealed pool) and what it does (evaluates color pairs, selects cards, suggests lands). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but its unique purpose makes misuse unlikely.

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