swu_view_hand

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'View' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of a 'deck session' provides some context, but it does not explicitly state side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes. This is a basic level of 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 verb 'View' and immediately specifies the objects and scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. The description covers the core function and context, and the single parameter is optional with a default. It is sufficiently complete for a simple view tool, though it could add a note about when to use it during play.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'session_id' parameter or its role. The only hint is 'for a deck session,' which vaguely connects the parameter to a session, but the description does not clarify the default behavior or how the parameter is used.

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 tool views the current hand, resources, and core counters for a deck session, specifying both the action and the precise resources involved. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_view_board by enumerating the specific content being viewed.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked or what scenarios it is best suited for, such as during an active game session or when inspecting hand state.

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