list_available_spreads

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

The description states the tool 'List all available spreads', which aligns with the readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations. It adds value by specifying that positions and meanings are included, going beyond the annotations alone.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the action and resource.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides enough context by stating the tool returns spreads with positions and meanings. Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the description is reasonably complete for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100% (single parameter 'language' with enum and default). The description does not mention the language parameter, but the schema already fully describes it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since no additional semantics are added.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'available tarot spreads' with the detail 'with their positions and meanings', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_daily_card' or 'recommend_spread'.

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 for browsing spreads but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recommend_spread' or 'create_custom_spread'. The context signals show no required parameters, suggesting simple usage, but the lack of when-not usage is a gap.

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