list_decks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: the response exposes per-deck write permission for this server, not just deck names. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or the exact return shape.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loaded on the primary action (list decks) with the secondary detail (write permission) trailing. Nothing redundant with the name or annotations.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description effectively doubles as a return-value summary (deck identifiers plus write-access flags), which compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gap: no mention of ordering or result size limits.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty argument object matches the description's no-filter behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all decks") plus a scope qualifier — which decks the server may write to — that no sibling exposes. An agent can distinguish it immediately from propose_create_deck or the notes tools without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied: call it to enumerate decks, presumably before proposing note or deck operations. However, it names no alternative and states no explicit condition for when this tool is the right choice versus, say, listing plans. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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