list_commander_themes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool lists information, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or authorization needs.

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, well-formed sentence that conveys the core purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input and output format (themes with deck counts). However, it lacks details about response structure, pagination, or any constraints, which would improve completeness.

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 only parameter 'commander' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying it is 'a Commander' from EDHREC, connecting the parameter to the tool's purpose beyond the minimal schema title.

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 a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('EDHREC themes/archetypes'), and adds context ('available for a Commander, with deck counts'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_commander_recommendations by focusing on themes rather than recommendations.

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?

While no explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' is stated, the purpose is clear enough from the name and context. The sibling tools list suggests this is the only tool for listing themes, so usage guidelines are implied but not explicit.

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