sideboard_guide

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds that it produces 'specific boarding instructions with reasoning,' but does not elaborate on potential failure modes (e.g., unrecognized archetypes) or output format. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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. First sentence states the exact purpose. Second provides necessary context (inputs and output). No redundant or vague language.

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?

The description is brief and does not mention the optional response_format parameter or clarify what 'reasoning' entails. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, more detail on output expectations or usage tips would improve completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'full 75 and a matchup archetype,' which aligns with parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions.

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 it produces a sideboard plan for a named matchup, using the full 75 and matchup archetype. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sideboard_matrix (likely a matrix) and suggest_sideboard (likely suggestions) by focusing on a specific matchup with reasoning.

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 usage context (needs full decklist and sideboard, specific matchup) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like sideboard_matrix or suggest_sideboard. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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