list_deck_cards

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety burden. It does so by explicitly stating 'Read-only' and adding the unexpected constraint 'Never call in parallel with other tools.' It also implies deterministic ordering through 'numbered cards,' which is useful behavioral context.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the function, use context, safety, and concurrency guidance with no redundant elaboration. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description, combined with the 100%-documented input schema and output schema, covers purpose, intended use, parameter semantics, and critical behavioral constraints. It could be slightly stronger by naming alternative sibling tools, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

All three parameters already have clear schema descriptions: limit includes default and max, offset explains starting index and pagination purpose, and deck_name requires the exact Anki deck name. The prose description doesn't need to add parameter details; it only reinforces the systematic-review framing.

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 is verb-first and specific: 'List numbered cards in a deck' for systematic review. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_decks, get_card, and search_cards by targeting cards inside a single deck.

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?

It states when to use the tool: for systematic review sessions and chat analysis of forms like verbs and declensions. The constraint 'Never call in parallel with other tools' is explicit, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives for say search vs. full-deck listing.

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