get_deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves deck details and a card list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's safe (non-destructive), what authentication is needed, rate limits, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get deck details and list of cards', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it efficiently structured.

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 complexity of retrieving deck details and a card list, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'deck details' include, how the card list is formatted, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'deckId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the deck ID format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'deck details and list of cards', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_card' (which retrieves a single card) or 'find_deck_by_name' (which finds decks by name rather than ID), missing full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'get_deck' over 'get_card' for card details or 'list_decks' for deck listings, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a deck ID. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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