swu_mulligan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Full-hand mulligan' implies resetting the hand, but it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., discarding current hand, drawing new hand) or any game-state requirements. The term is well-known in card games, but the description does not add detail beyond the basic action.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action and is appropriately concise.

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 simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks contextual details such as when a mulligan is allowed (e.g., only at game start) or what constitutes a 'full-hand' mulligan. The description is minimal but not inadequate for a straightforward action.

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 does not explain the 'session_id' parameter. Although the parameter has a default and is likely self-explanatory, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema itself, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's role.

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 action ('Take a full-hand mulligan') and the resource ('current deck session'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like swu_draw_card or swu_sideboard, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context ('current deck session') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It is not misleading, but lacks depth.

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