analyze_deck

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It implies read-only analysis but does not explicitly disclose safety, authentication needs, or any side effects. Acceptable but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded content. First sentence lists all major outputs; second provides usage context. No redundant words.

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 no output schema, description does not explain return format or structure, which is a gap for a complex analysis tool. It covers purpose but lacks detail on how to interpret results.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description of 'deck_code' as a base64 string. Description adds no additional meaning beyond stating it's a deck code, meeting baseline but not exceeding.

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?

Description specifies exact verb 'Analyze' and resource 'Hearthstone deck code', and lists concrete outputs (archetype classification, gameplan, strengths/weaknesses, matchup dynamics). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like decode_deck or get_archetype, which provide narrower functionality.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this for strategic deck coaching', providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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