spellbook_find_decklist_combos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by specifying that it returns both fully included and almost included combos. This behavioral detail is not captured by annotations, enhancing transparency.

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 sentences that front-load the core action and provide clear instructions. No superfluous text is present.

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 straightforward nature of the tool and the complete schema coverage, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It lacks details on exact output structure (e.g., how combos are listed), but for a simple query tool, this is acceptable.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('commanders' and 'decklist'). The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 finds combos present in or nearly present in a Commander decklist. It uses specific verb 'find' and resource 'combos present in decklist', distinguishing it from sibling tools like spellbook_find_combos which likely searches combos without a decklist.

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 explicitly instructs to provide commander name(s) and a decklist, making the usage context clear. It does not, however, explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context implies it is for decklist-based combo analysis.

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