swu_draw_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the action without disclosing side effects like deck count reduction or hand addition. It also doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., empty deck) or authorization requirements.

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 with no filler or redundant information, earning top marks for brevity.

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 a state-changing game action with an output schema, but the description omits critical context such as effect on game state, required session setup, and relationship to other actions. With no annotations, this minimal coverage leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, and the description only loosely hints at 'count' via 'one or more cards' but never explains session_id or that count is an integer with a default. Neither parameter gets meaningful semantic enrichment beyond the schema's basic types.

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 uses a specific verb ('Draw') and identifies the resource ('an uploaded deck session'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like view_hand or play_card. The 'one or more cards' quantifier adds specificity.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mulligan or view_hand. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., must have an active game session) or exclusions.

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