build_deck

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses heuristic behavior (curve/keyword-value optimization), ownership capping, honest shortfall reporting, pricing via tcgcsv.com, rotation restrictions, and the disclaimer at the bottom of results. It also explains the no-op/ignored parameter behavior, providing a transparent view of internal logic.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and mode overview, then uses a bulleted list for modes and a labeled 'Args:' block. Every sentence adds distinctive information—no filler or redundant restatements. The length is justified by the tool's complexity (5 params, 3 modes, multiple formats).

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 tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: parameter semantics, mode behavior, constraints, edge-case handling (shortfall, no-op), and pricing integration. An output schema exists, so not describing return values is acceptable, and the description mentions the disclaimer for result interpretation.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates completely by explaining every parameter: ink_colors format and allowed counts per format, the three mode values, accepted format values, collection_csv path requirements and when it's required/optional/ignored, and rotation_safe's conditional behavior. This far exceeds what the schema's bare titles/defaults provide.

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: 'Automatically assemble a legal, curve-balanced ~60-card decklist for an ink pair and format'. It specifies the verb (assemble), resource (decklist), and scope (modes, format), and differentiates from sibling tools like filter_collection or analyze_deck by focusing on deck generation rather than collection management or analysis.

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 explicitly explains when to use each of the three modes ('collection', 'ideal', 'market') with conditions and outcomes, including details such as required collection_csv for 'collection', optional for 'ideal', and ignored for 'market'. It also notes the no-op behavior for rotation_safe in non-core formats and calls out the tool's limitations ('not multi-card combos or synergy packages'), which guides users to alternatives.

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