Get deck

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

No annotations exist, and the description doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, error behavior for missing IDs, or required permissions. It only lists return content.

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?

One concise sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the action and key result.

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 simple getter with no output schema, it lists return components but omits error handling and read-only guarantees; sufficient but not fully complete.

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?

The schema has zero coverage for deckId; the description adds that it identifies one deck but doesn't clarify ID format or origin, leaving the parameter's semantics partially inferred.

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 specifies a clear retrieval action for one deck and lists the exact returned components (manifest, scope-ledger summary, bundle file paths), distinguishing it from list_decks and render_deck.

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?

It implies usage when full details for a single deck are needed, but it doesn't explicitly state common alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a basic getter.

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