what_am_i_missing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: first checks CSV's own TCG Market Price for owned cards (no network), falls back to live TCGPlayer lookup only for zero-copy cards (cheapest printing), caches fallback data for 24 hours, and only fetches if actually needed. This goes beyond a simple 'read-only' hint and covers conditional behavior, data source, and caching.

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 longer than minimal, but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, then details mechanics and args. It might be slightly dense, but no filler or redundancy. The structure with separate paragraphs and an Args section aids readability.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers input formats, pricing logic, fallback behavior, and caching, which is thorough for a tool with two parameters. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., invalid CSV, missing cards in TCGPlayer lookup) or network dependencies beyond tcgcsv.com, leaving a small gap for full completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully. It explains deck_list is 'raw deck list text, one card per line (e.g. "4x Goofy - Musketeer")' and collection_csv is 'absolute path to an enriched Lorcana collection CSV.' It also mentions the expected format is identical to analyze_deck, giving clear semantic meaning beyond simple field names.

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 opens with a clear action: 'Compare a deck list against your collection: what you own, what's missing, and the estimated cost to complete it.' This states the specific verb (compare/cross-reference), resources (deck list and collection CSV), and output (owned/missing/cost). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_deck by explicitly focusing on collection comparison, not just deck 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 gives context for when to use the tool: when you have a deck list and want to see collection completeness/cost. It references 'same format as analyze_deck,' implying analyze_deck is the alternative for deck-only analysis. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X when...' or list exclusions, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

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