ygo_script_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the analytical outputs in detail, including pipeline completeness, risks, and complexity metrics, but it does not explicitly state that analysis is read-only, whether scripts are executed, how errors are handled, or whether there are rate or size limits.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the two modes. Every sentence carries substantive information, though the long sentences could be easier to scan if broken into bullets.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a strong job explaining what both modes return, including the specific analytical dimensions and aggregate metrics. It is less complete about how the four optional card-mode input parameters interact, but the schema covers their individual meanings.

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 100%, and each parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the mode semantics but adds no guidance on precedence when multiple card-mode inputs (`luaCode`, `luaPath`, `cardName`, `passcode`) are supplied.

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 names a specific resource and operation: card-script analysis, split into `card` and `corpus` modes. It enumerates the exact effect properties and structural risks analyzed, so an agent can distinguish it from generic Lua analysis or deck tools.

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 two modes are clearly described, implying that `card` is for one script and `corpus` is for a folder. However, the description does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings like `ygo_analyze_lua` or `ygo_judge_card`, nor does it give any exclusions.

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