Marseille — Clarifier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the card count and group. It does not describe potential side effects or constraints (e.g., whether the question is optional). With annotations present, the description's contribution is acceptable but not enriched.

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 extremely concise, with only three brief lines. No superfluous words. The group tag and example are efficiently included. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool is simple, and the annotations cover safety. However, there is no output schema or description of the return value. A brief note on what the tool returns (e.g., a card object with name, meaning, etc.) would improve completeness. Currently, it relies on the agent's prior knowledge of tarot reading outputs.

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 only describes body as a raw JSON object, which is vague. However, the description compensates by providing an example with fields seed, question, and allowReversed, clarifying the required structure. This example adds significant meaning beyond the schema, earning a high score.

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 'Single clarifying card' clearly states the tool's function: drawing one tarot card for clarification. The title 'Marseille — Clarifier' reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tarot_marseille_draw_single or tarot_rider_waite_clarify, leaving the agent to infer the specific usage context.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus others (e.g., after an initial spread, or when further insight is needed). Without explicit when/when-not advice, the agent may misuse it.

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