anki_list_decks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that the operation is safe. It adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining how nested decks are returned (using `::` separator) and providing an example, which is valuable beyond the 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 two sentences: a clear statement of purpose followed by a concrete example of nested deck formatting. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every word contributes to understanding. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 optional parameter, existing output schema, read-only annotations), the description adequately covers the core behavior and the important detail of nested deck separation. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'response_format', which includes an enum and explanation. The tool description does not add any extra meaning for this parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema already carries the full semantic load.

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 explicitly states 'List every deck in the collection' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like anki_create_deck or anki_list_models. The additional detail about nested decks using `::` reinforces the exact scope of the operation.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: whenever you need to list all decks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and the note about nested deck naming helps the user understand the output format. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions.'

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