check_deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'without inferring bracket fit' but fails to explain whether the tool is read-only, what permissions it requires, what side effects exist, or the nature of its return value. For a legality-checking tool, this is insufficient.

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 that wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the purpose without fluff. However, it is perhaps too concise—adding a brief sentence about input or output could improve it without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of the input schema (nested objects with many properties) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the output represents (pass/fail, detailed violations), what 'bracket fit' means in context, or note any prerequisites like authentication or specific game format. The tool is moderately complex but the description covers almost none of the needed context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description adds no information whatsoever about the 'request' object or its nested properties. The agent receives no guidance on how to construct the required input (e.g., deck_id, scenario), making parameter understanding entirely reliant on the schema structure alone.

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 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'deck construction legality', clearly stating the tool's core function. It further distinguishes itself by noting 'without inferring bracket fit', which sets it apart from potential sibling tools like analyze_deck or plan_deck that might involve inference. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description hints at a distinction ('without inferring bracket fit') but does not specify situations where this tool is preferred over analyze_deck, plan_deck, or others. No alternatives are named, nor are when-not scenarios provided.

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