moxfield_decklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety. Description adds that it returns cards organized by board with names and quantities, which is useful but does not contradict annotations or add significant new behavioral context beyond the return format.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the essential action and result. Efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple fetch tool with no output schema, the description explains the return structure (organized by board with card names and quantities). It lacks details on error handling or pagination, but these are likely not needed given the tool's simplicity and the openWorldHint annotation. Almost complete.

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?

Only one parameter (deck_id) with schema coverage 100%. The description repeats the schema's parameter description (ID or URL) without adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a full decklist from Moxfield by deck ID or URL, and explains the organization by board. This distinguishes it from siblings like moxfield_deck_info (metadata) and moxfield_search_decks (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?

Usage is implied (to retrieve a decklist by identifier), but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar ones like moxfield_deck_info or how to handle different URL formats. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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