Browse Sets

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only operation (listing/drilling) but does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, more explicit behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary action. Every sentence provides necessary information without any fluff or redundancy.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It does not need to explain return values, as the behavior is straightforward.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter set_code. The description adds value by explaining the two usage scenarios (omit vs. provide the code) and the effect of providing it (see cards in that set). This goes beyond the schema's simple description of the parameter.

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 states the action (list or drill) and resource (Disney Lorcana sets), and specifies the two distinct modes: listing all sets or showing a specific set's cards. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_cards by focusing on sets rather than generic card search.

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 clear usage guidance: omit set_code for listing all sets, provide it to drill into a specific set. It implicitly guides when to use this tool over search_cards (which is for broader card search), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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