analyze_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses parsing behavior (accepted quantities, comment syntax), report contents (curve, inkable counts, legality, unresolved names), and notes the 'estimated' nature of lore-per-turn. This is thorough behavioral detail, though it does not explicitly address side effects or error handling.

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 concise yet information-dense. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides necessary parsing and report details in a structured way without redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the single parameter and existing output schema, the description is complete: it covers input syntax, edge cases, report items, legality rules, and unresolved-name reporting. No critical gaps remain for an agent to invoke this tool effectively.

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 provides only a bare string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the expected format, examples, optional quantity, comment handling, and what the deck_list should contain. This is far beyond what the schema offers.

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's function: 'Analyze a raw deck list and return curve, composition, and legality stats.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like build_deck (construction) or lookup_card (single card lookup).

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 provides clear context: it is for analyzing raw deck lists, with detailed input format and expected output. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope is unambiguous enough to guide selection among sibling tools.

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