RWS — Shadow Card

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the purpose. It does not contradict annotations.

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 very short, consisting of two lines and an example. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured with a clearer explanation of the output.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a pair of cards). It only vaguely says 'shadow card pair' without clarifying the output format. Context is incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description only provides an example with the required 'date' parameter, adding no extra meaning to optional parameters like latitude, longitude, or timezoneOffset.

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 computes a shadow card pair that mirrors the personality card in the major arcana, using the Rider-Waite-Smith deck. The tool name and group reinforce this. It distinguishes itself from other tarot tools by specifying the 'shadow' concept.

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 on when to use this tool versus other tarot tools like the birth card or year card. The example only shows input format, not when the tool is appropriate.

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