List decks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds one piece of behavioral context, the deterministic 'newest first' ordering, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or truncation behavior for a potentially unbounded list.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and the ordering front-loaded; no filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description cannot be expected to enumerate return fields, but for a listing tool it omits whether results are paginated or bounded and what identifiers are returned for follow-up calls (get_deck, update_deck). Adequate for a trivial read tool but with visible gaps.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax the description could add or omit. No filtering or pagination parameters exist, so there is no gap for the description to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List saved decks') plus the sort order ('newest first'), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_deck (single retrieval) without opening a schema. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'List saved decks' suggests an enumeration use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives such as get_deck or inspect_changes. Nothing is misleading, but the agent must infer the selection context.

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