get_weak_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the ranking algorithm (lapse count then ease) and the exclusion of suspended cards, which an agent would otherwise not know. Return format is not described, but an output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ranking rule, followed by usage and an exclusion note. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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?

For a read-only ranked-query tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, ranking semantics, usage scenarios, and the suspended-card exclusion. The only gap is that it never addresses the limit parameter, which leaves the agent to rely entirely on the schema's default and bounds.

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 description coverage is only 50%: 'deck' is documented in the schema ('Exact deck name (includes subdecks). Omit for all decks.') but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description references no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit, its default of 15, or its max of 50.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the cards'), and goes further by defining exactly what 'weak' means: highest lapse count, then lowest ease. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_decks and search_notes, which serve different retrieval purposes.

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?

Provides concrete usage contexts ('quiz me on my weak spots', deciding which topics need rewritten/extra cards), which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling instead, but the sibling set (list_decks, search_notes, get_notes, add_notes) has little functional overlap, so the risk of misrouting is low.

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