generate_flashcards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects (e.g., file creation/modification), safety guarantees, or expected behavior when parameters are omitted.

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 concise with a single line purpose followed by a clear, well-structured parameter list. It is front-loaded and each sentence contributes, though could be slightly tighter.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks explanation of what happens when both notes and query are empty, and could clarify the output format more, though the output schema may cover that.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: notes supports glob with sampling, cards has a recommended range, query is for new content, deck defaults, and use_schema reuses existing cards, all beyond the schema's type/default information.

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 starts with 'Generate flashcards using obsidianki,' which clearly states the verb (generate) and resource (flashcards). It is specific and easily understood, with no ambiguity.

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 usage hints for individual parameters (e.g., 'You can leave this blank if the user does not specify' for notes, 'recommend 3-6 if set' for cards), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or overall context for its application.

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