list_decks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies that the tool returns deck IDs and card counts, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, ordering, pagination, or performance characteristics. For a simple read-only listing, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It states the action and the result content efficiently. The missing parameter explanation is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one, so it scores high here.

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?

The tool is straightforward with one optional parameter, but the parameter's purpose is entirely undocumented. The output schema exists, which may explain the response, but the input parameter remains unexplained. There is also no usage guidance regarding alternatives. These gaps prevent an agent from correctly invoking the tool with the output_file argument.

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 only parameter, output_file, is not mentioned in the description at all. The schema provides a type and default but no description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not. An agent cannot infer what output_file does, making this a critical gap.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (all decks in the Anki collection) and specifies the output content (IDs and card counts). It distinguishes from siblings like create_deck or delete_deck by implying a read-only enumeration.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The name and description imply a listing operation, but there is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The purpose is distinct enough that usage is implied, but no direct guidance is provided.

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