Study Category

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses merging, shuffling, and attribution behavior. Could explicitly state non-destructive nature, but current detail is adequate.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded main purpose, efficient. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'merged and shuffled' could be assumed from 'study'). Still well-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 single optional parameter, output schema exists (reducing need for return value description), and context signals show low complexity. Description covers behavior sufficiently for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, and description adds value by explaining path format ('::' nesting) and the effect of omission. Enhances schema meaning.

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 'study' and resource 'cards under a category node', explains nesting with '::', and distinguishes from siblings like 'review_deck' by focusing on category vs. single deck.

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?

Describes when to omit path (study all decks) and that studying a node covers all subdecks. Does not explicitly mention when not to use vs. specific sibling tools, but context is clear enough.

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