List decks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does so by listing the returned fields (id, title, created, duration, slide count), making the response predictable. The verb 'list' implies read-only semantics, and no side effects are suggested, which is sufficient transparency for a simple read operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and output fields without any wasted words. Every piece of information is essential.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the essentials: what it lists, the scope (all decks), and the return fields. No additional context (e.g., pagination, format) is needed given the simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description does not need to add parameter details. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and no further information is necessary.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all generated decks'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_deck, which retrieves a single deck. It also specifies the exact output fields, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 phrase 'List all generated decks' provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a summary of all decks is needed. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or reference alternatives, but the scope ('all') inherently distinguishes it from single-item tools like get_deck.

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