load_deck

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

Since annotations are missing entirely, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a key behavioral trait: the tool does not treat the deck as evidence of ownership, which implies it is a safe, non-destructive operation. However, it fails to describe side effects, authorization needs, or what happens with invalid input. The output schema exists but the description does not reference return behavior, leaving gaps.

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 with no extraneous content. It front-loads the core action ('normalize deck text') and adds a key discriminator. While brief, it earns its place by being focused.

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 tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, an output schema (which could document return values), and a complex sibling set, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the normalization process, input requirements, output structure, or how this differs from similar tools like 'check_deck'. Substantial gaps remain for the agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for documenting parameters. It mentions none of the three parameters ('text', 'label', 'format') explicitly. 'text' and 'label' are required but their purpose is only inferred from the tool's context. The 'format' parameter has a default but no explanation of its role. 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 'Normalize deck text without treating it as evidence of ownership' uses a specific verb ('normalize') and identifies the resource ('deck text'). However, the phrase 'without treating it as evidence of ownership' is ambiguous and does not clearly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'check_deck' or 'analyze_deck'. The lack of clarity on what 'normalize' means reduces the score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_deck' or 'analyze_deck'. The description implies a specific constraint (not treating as evidence) but does not explain what that means for usage. No exclusion criteria or context signals (e.g., prerequisites like deck format constraints) are given.

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