RWS — Single Card Draw

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: optional seed for deterministic shuffling, acceptance of a question, and allowReversed parameter. This supplements the annotations further than the schema alone.

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: two sentences, a group tag, and a JSON example. Every element is purposeful—the example is particularly efficient for conveying parameter structure. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

While annotations and the description cover input behavior well, the tool lacks an output schema and the description does not mention the return format. The agent does not know what the response contains (e.g., card name, interpretation, suit). Given the simplicity of a single card draw, this is a notable gap.

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 is minimal (single raw JSON body with no detailed properties). The description provides a concrete example with fields (seed, question, allowReversed), significantly compensating for the schema's lack of structure. This is crucial for the agent to understand required and optional inputs.

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 it draws 1 card from the Rider-Waite-Smith deck, with a specific verb and resource. The name and title reinforce this, and it effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'draw_three_card' or 'draw_celtic_cross' due to the singular 'single' and explicit card count.

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 a single card draw versus other Tarot tools such as three-card spreads or Celtic cross. No differentiation criteria, use cases, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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