deck_stats

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral details: dual-ink cards count in both color buckets (sum may exceed total_cards), unresolved names are listed separately and excluded from per-card stats but counted in total_cards, and return format structure. Lacks mention of performance or potential side effects, but it's a read-only compute.

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 approximately 100 words, well-structured with a clear list of stats and an important note about unresolved names. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value.

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 single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers core functionality and edge cases (dual-ink, unresolved). It partially describes output format, which is acceptable since an output schema exists. Missing minor details like input validation but overall sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 0% (no property descriptions in schema), so description must compensate. It implies the input deck array should contain objects with a 'full_name' property via reference in the output description, but does not explicitly describe the expected structure of input items. While helpful, it leaves some ambiguity about required fields.

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 specifies a specific verb ('compute summary stats') and resource ('Lorcana deck'), and lists the exact stats computed (ink curve, color split, inkable/uninkable counts, type breakdown), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aggregate_cards or count_cards.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool does, but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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