spicerack_format_decklists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context: it collects only top-4 finishers from recent events, sourced from Moxfield decklists. This goes beyond annotations but could mention data freshness or zero-result scenarios.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by a useful cross-reference. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not specify the output structure (e.g., deck name, record, URL). While annotations hint at open world results, the agent lacks details on what to expect from the response.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add new semantic value beyond the schema; it only implicitly references 'recent tournaments' which maps to num_days. 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 top-performing decklists from recent tournaments for a format, specifying it collects top-4 finishers with Moxfield decklists. This distinguishes it from siblings like moxfield_search_decks or spicerack_recent_tournaments.

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 advises using moxfield_decklist for full card lists, providing an alternative for a specific need. However, it does not explicitly compare with other siblings like moxfield_search_decks or spicerack_tournament_results, nor does it state when to avoid this tool.

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