search_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning results 'to disk', which is a significant side effect (writing a file), but does not clarify whether the function returns anything in response, its read-only nature, or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or permissions. The term 'returning ... to disk' is ambiguous—does it write a file or return a path? This lacks transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and result. It is efficient and easy to read, though it might be slightly too sparse given the tool's complexity. No wasteful words.

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 three parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the Anki browser syntax, the output file format, the meaning of the limit, or the return value (especially since it says 'to disk' but an output schema exists). An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without consulting external documentation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. It does not explain what 'query' should contain beyond 'Anki browser syntax', nor what 'limit' controls, nor how 'output_file' is used (the phrase 'to disk' hints at it but without specifics). The description adds almost no value beyond the schema field names.

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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'cards', specifies the query syntax (Anki browser syntax), and lists the returned data (queue status, due dates, intervals). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like search_notes because it targets cards explicitly, though it doesn't name sibling tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_notes or other card-related tools. The description implies it's for searching cards, but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternative usage scenarios. The agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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