suggest_mana_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'suggests' recommendations, implying a read-only or advisory function, but doesn't clarify if it's a simulation, calculation, or data lookup. It lacks details on performance, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output entails (e.g., list of lands, percentages). For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence: 'Suggest optimal mana base composition and land recommendations for a deck.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero redundant words, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, output format, or usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what results to expect.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no specific parameter details beyond implying it uses deck characteristics for suggestions. It doesn't explain how parameters like 'color_intensity' or 'special_requirements' influence the output. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides minimal extra value.

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's purpose: 'suggest optimal mana base composition and land recommendations for a deck.' It specifies the verb ('suggest') and resource ('mana base composition and land recommendations'), making the function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_deck_composition' or 'search_format_staples,' which might also relate to deck-building, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. Given the sibling tools include 'analyze_deck_composition' and 'search_format_staples,' which could overlap in deck analysis, the lack of differentiation is a significant gap, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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