spicerack_format_decklists

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds behavior detail: it collects top-4 finishers with Moxfield decklists from recent events, which aligns with and expands on the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for purpose and one cross-reference. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any unnecessary words.

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 4 parameters (all documented in schema), annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and output (list of decklists with Moxfield links). It could mention result ordering or pagination, but is generally complete for understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the tool's overall behavior (top-4, recent events) but does not provide additional semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

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 finds top-performing decklists for a format from recent tournaments. It specifically mentions collecting top-4 finishers with Moxfield decklists, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'moxfield_decklist' which fetches full card lists for a specific deck.

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 advises using 'moxfield_decklist' to fetch the full card list for a deck, providing a clear sequential usage hint. It does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like 'spicerack_tournament_results', but the context of siblings is available through the tool names.

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