analyze_deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits like whether this tool is read-only, destructive, has side effects, requires authorization, or has rate limits. The description only says it stores structural metrics, which implies a write operation, but it does not explain persistence, idempotency, or what happens to existing data. This is insufficient for a tool that accepts a complex request with nested objects.

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 very brief (one short sentence). While it is efficient, it omits critical information that could be added without much more text. It earns a 4 for being concise, not verbose.

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 having an output schema and a single parameter, the tool is conceptually complex (involves scenarios, win packages, score definitions) and has many sibling tools. The description does not explain the return format, how the analysis is performed, what constitutes 'evidence-backed metrics', or how the output relates to the input. The tool is under-described for its complexity.

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%, meaning the description must add meaning to the parameters, but it does not. The input schema defines a single 'request' parameter containing multiple nested objects (ScenarioInput, WinPackageInput, ScoreDefinitionInput, etc.), yet the description offers no explanation of how these fields relate to the analysis or what values they accept. For a complex tool with one parameter that is a nested object, this is a significant gap.

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 includes a verb (Store) and a resource (structural metrics, no scalar power score), which suggests the tool persists or records analysis results. However, the meaning of 'evidence-backed structural metrics' and 'without a scalar power score' is vague and does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'check_deck' or 'plan_deck'. The score is 3 because it indicates what the tool does but lacks specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check_deck', 'plan_deck', or 'compare_decks'. The description does not explain prerequisites, expected input context, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate. This is a critical gap given the complex input schema with nested objects.

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