format_recommendation_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'chat-renderable cards' and link modes, but doesn't disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., valid deviceId), or what the output structure looks like. For a formatting tool, it doesn't clarify whether it mutates any state or just returns formatted data.

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, front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff. However, given the complexity (11 parameters), it could benefit from more detail, but for what it is, it's efficient.

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 has 11 parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to be more comprehensive. It doesn't cover parameter relationships, default behaviors, or how the tool integrates with the recommendation pipeline. For an MCP tool, it's insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional documentation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'preview links and MCP action links' which relates to linkMode, but doesn't explain key parameters like deviceId, apps, mood, catalog, or actionBaseUrl. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already shows.

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's purpose: to format recommendations into chat-renderable cards with specific link types (preview and MCP action links). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on formatting rather than content retrieval or device control, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It doesn't specify when to choose this over other recommendation-related tools like 'recommend_content' or 'suggest_content'. The phrase 'instead of buttons' hints at a UX preference but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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