find_lines

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

Annotations only say non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the async job_id pattern with per-depth timings, the deck-stacking mechanics, the scoring methodology (interruptions left live plus hand traps), the 'search result, not a solver' caveat, and the environment prerequisite failure mode.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then timing, then parameter guidance, then caveats – every clause carries information. It is a dense single block rather than a structured list, which costs a little scannability but no sentence is wasted.

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 still states the return contract (a job_id, retrieved via line_result) and the caveats an agent needs (search-not-solver framing, prerequisite environment, recommended starting depth). Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: hand = 5 card names or passcodes, deck = exactly one of saved_deck/ydk_path/ydk_text/decklist, executor = 'module:Class' with a concrete example, and depth = quick/normal/deep with latency expectations.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('find the turn-1 lines a starting hand makes, going first') and immediately names the mechanism (searching the real EDOPro engine with a stacked deck). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like line_result (fetch results) and card_rulings (verify rulings).

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Run it when the user asks for a specific hand's line, starting with depth "quick".' It routes the agent to line_result for fetching and card_rulings for rules verification, and states the prerequisite (YGOSIM_HOME checkout, otherwise an error).

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