plan_deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses only that candidates must be 'complete' and between 'one to eight', but it does not mention side effects, read-only status, permissions, or what the evaluation returns. This is a minimal disclosure for a complex tool.

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 sentence of eight words, stating the action and key constraints with no redundant or extraneous information. It is highly concise and front-loaded with the main verb.

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 extremely complex input schema and the presence of an output schema, a one-sentence description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what a 'candidate' is, what the evaluation entails, or how the tool fits into the overall workflow, making it insufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool 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?

The description adds a meaningful constraint on the 'candidates' parameter by specifying 'one to eight' and requiring completeness, which the schema itself does not enforce. However, it gives no details about the many other fields in the 'request' object, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema structure and names.

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 clearly uses the verb 'Evaluate' with a specific resource ('candidates') and a scope ('one to eight'), making the core action understandable. However, it does not clarify that these are deck candidates or that the tool produces a plan, which would distinguish it from sibling tools like analyze_deck or compare_decks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither explains prerequisites, exclusions, nor mentions any competing tools, leaving the agent without contextual selection cues.

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