card_appearances

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool lists, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a simple list with no parameters, minimal behavioral context is needed, but description adds no value beyond purpose.

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 sentence of 7 words, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. No unnecessary words or information. It is highly concise.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it lists card appearances (designs by type and level). It distinguishes from siblings. Could be more complete by explaining what a 'card appearance' entails or if there are any filters, but it is adequate.

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 zero parameters and its description coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, which is expected. However, it clarifies what the output contains, which is beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params with high coverage is 3.

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 lists available card appearances and specifies they are designs by type and level. Verb 'List' and resource 'card appearances' are explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like card_list (which lists cards) and card_create (which creates cards).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Among many card-related siblings, the lack of usage direction is a notable gap.

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