deck_gap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that basics are excluded and copies are capped at a playset of 4, which are important constraints not visible in the schema. It also clarifies the deck identifier can be by id or name. It doesn't mention error handling or read-only guarantees, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and follows with two important constraints. There is no wasted wording, and all information contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 simple single-parameter schema and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and edge-case constraints (basics excluded, cap at 4). It does not address potential confusion with similar sibling tools like 'missing_from_set', but for its simplicity it is sufficiently complete.

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 only has a 'deck' string with no description, so the description compensates by stating that the deck can be specified by id or name. This adds meaningful semantics to the otherwise opaque parameter. It doesn't provide formatting examples, but enough is given to understand the parameter's purpose.

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 what the tool returns: cards and wildcards needed to complete a deck. It distinguishes from siblings like 'missing_from_set' by focusing on decks rather than entire sets. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'calculates' or 'lists'), so it is not a perfect 5.

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 implied usage is to determine the missing cards for a given deck using the user's collection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose makes the primary use case clear. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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