cdeck_schema

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. Referring to it as documentation content implicitly signals a pure information read with no side effects, and the output schema covers the return shape, but the description never states explicitly that it is read-only, non-destructive, or requires no pairing/auth state — all of which are relevant given siblings like cdeck_pair and cdeck_unpair.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states what it returns, the second states when to call it. Nothing is wasted and the content statement is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters, a full output schema, and a simple read-only purpose, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide to call it. Only the explicit absence of side effects or prerequisites is missing, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail and instead spends its words on content and timing.

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 the specific resource it returns: the deck document format schema (v1) plus guidance on building a good deck. This clearly separates it from siblings like cdeck_push and cdeck_status, which operate on decks rather than describing the format. It stops short of an explicit verb (e.g. 'returns' or 'retrieves'), leaving the action slightly implicit.

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?

'Read this before the first push' gives a concrete, actionable trigger tied to a named sibling tool, so the agent knows when to call it. There is no explicit when-not or note about whether re-reading later is useful, so it falls short of a 5.

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