build_around

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). It explains that the tool analyzes oracle text for key mechanics, searches for synergies, checks combo potential, and groups results by role (enablers, payoffs, support). This clarifies the internal logic and output structure, which is not covered by annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two short paragraphs that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It avoids fluff and effectively communicates the tool's functionality.

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 complexity (synergy finding, grouping by role) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview. However, it does not specify the exact output structure or format beyond 'grouped by role'. With 5 parameters and no output schema, a slightly more detailed description of the return format would be beneficial, but the current version is mostly adequate.

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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds marginal value by explaining the analysis process (e.g., 'analyzes oracle text for key mechanics'), but does not provide additional details about parameter usage beyond what the schema already states. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Find synergistic cards for 1-5 build-around cards in any format.' It specifies the verb 'find', the resource 'synergistic cards', and the scope (1-5 cards). The additional details about analyzing oracle text, searching for mechanics, and grouping by role make the purpose highly specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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 implies use when a user has build-around cards and wants synergies, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools like 'archetype_comparison', 'spellbook_find_combos', or 'color_identity_staples'. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites are provided.

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