radiografia_del_mazo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of output (objective facts, not interpretations), the specific per-card fields, and deck-level aggregations. It also notes that the pattern engine only finds existing written patterns, implying this tool provides novel data. However, it does not mention input format validation, error behavior, or performance characteristics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, uses clear bullet points for output details, and each sentence adds value. It is well-structured for the complexity and not overly verbose.

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 there is an output schema (not shown), the description thoroughly covers the conceptual output: per-card signals and deck-level stats. It also positions the tool within the sibling set. However, it omits input format prerequisites and potential edge cases (e.g., malformed deck lists), leaving a minor gap.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the expected format for 'lista' or the purpose of 'nombre'. It implies 'lista' is a deck list via 'para cada carta', but lacks explicit parameter semantics, syntax, or examples.

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 tool provides objective deck facts: per-card oracle text and verifiable signals (alcance, tipos_que_menciona, zonas_que_toca, velocidad), plus deck-level stats. It distinguishes itself from pattern-based tools by positioning this as raw data for reasoning, not pre-computed patterns.

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 instructs to use 'ANTES de escribir el análisis' and 'junto con detectar_sinergias', giving a clear when-to-use. It also contrasts with the 'motor de patrones' (likely combos_conocidos) to clarify that this tool provides facts while the pattern engine finds already-known patterns.

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