compare_decks

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it does not produce a scalar score. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It also hints at a comparison output (likely showing differences or side-by-side). However, it does not explain what the output format looks like, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or how it handles invalid or missing IDs.

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 concise sentence that packs key information: action, item count range, items compared, and what is NOT done (no scalar scoring). It is front-loaded and efficient. However, given the complexity of the tool and the 0% schema coverage, a slightly longer description might add necessary clarity without being 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?

The tool has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists (but its content is not shown). The description provides the count constraint and item type, but fails to explain what the output contains (e.g., a comparison table, list of differences), how conflicts are resolved (e.g., if IDs are invalid), or whether the tool is read-only. Given the complexity of comparing multiple decks, the description is somewhat incomplete.

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?

There is a single parameter 'deck_or_plan_ids' with a type of array of strings. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description says 'compare two to eight raw decks or plan winners', which adds the constraint of min/max count (2-8) and the types of strings ('deck_or_plan_ids' → decks or plan winners). However, it does not specify the format of each ID (e.g., should they be full IDs or partial?), whether the order matters, or how mixed types (e.g., both deck and plan IDs) are handled.

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 specific verbs ('compare', 'without scalar scoring') and names the resource ('raw decks or plan winners'). It clearly states the tool compares decks, not scalar scores, and implies a parallel/cross comparison. However, 'plan winners' is a domain term that may need more explanation, and 'raw decks' could be clarified to avoid confusion with 'check_deck' or 'analyze_deck'.

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 states a use case (compare decks without scalar scoring) and implies it's an alternative to scoring-based evaluation. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when you need a numeric score, use 'check_deck' or 'analyze_deck') or mention any prerequisites (e.g., deck/plan IDs must exist). The sibling tools suggest possible alternatives, but no guidance is provided.

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