hearthstone-decks-mcp

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 parses deck codes and returns detailed information, but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for invalid codes), performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format specifics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 and output. It's front-loaded with the core action (parsing deck codes) and includes key details (card details and cover images) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and 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 the tool's moderate complexity (parsing deck codes with optional stats) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, and output structure. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it only mentions 'detailed deck information' vaguely, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (deckCode and includeStats). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides—it mentions returning card details and cover images but doesn't explain how parameters influence this. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose: '解析炉石传说卡组代码，返回详细的卡组信息，包括卡牌详情和封面图' (Parse Hearthstone deck codes, return detailed deck information including card details and cover images). It specifies the verb (parse), resource (deck codes), and output (detailed deck info with card details and cover images). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_card_info or search_cards, which appear to be about individual cards rather than deck parsing.

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 sibling tools (get_card_info, search_cards) or specify contexts where this tool is appropriate (e.g., for analyzing deck compositions vs. looking up individual cards). There's no indication of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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