list_decks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all') but doesn't describe return format, pagination, permissions needed, or error conditions. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 low complexity (single optional parameter) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about what the list returns and any behavioral constraints, but the simplicity of the operation keeps it from being severely incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'includeArchived' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 ('List') and resource ('all Mochi flashcard decks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_deck_by_name' or 'get_deck', which also retrieve deck information but with different scopes or filtering capabilities.

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 like 'find_deck_by_name' or 'get_deck'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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