decode_deck

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as decoding without side effects, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, error handling, or performance implications. Adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Purpose and usage are front-loaded. Highly concise and efficient.

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 simple tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, description explains input and output (card list, mana curve, card type breakdown). Could mention return format or error handling for invalid codes, but overall adequate for the complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'deck_code' as 'Hearthstone deck code (base64 deckstring)'. Description adds minimal extra context ('when a user shares a deck code'), but doesn't elaborate on format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verb 'Decode' and resource 'Hearthstone deck code', and specifies output: 'full card list with mana curve and card type breakdown'. It also states the use case: when a user shares a deck code. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like '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?

Description provides a clear when-to-use scenario: 'Use this when a user shares a deck code and wants to see what's in it.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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