suggest_mana_base

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

Description discloses that the tool analyzes color requirements and suggests lands, adding context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). However, it does not detail return values or failure modes; with high annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: first states purpose, second elaborates core functionality, third notes special mana handling. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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?

Combined with annotations and schema descriptions, the description provides sufficient context for using the tool. It lacks explicit mention of external data dependencies, but openWorldHint partially addresses this.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds minor value by mentioning hybrid/phyrexian mana handling, which relates to the decklist parameter, but does not significantly augment the schema.

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 it suggests a mana base based on color pip distribution, recommending land count and format-legal dual lands. It handles hybrid and phyrexian mana, making the purpose specific and differentiating 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?

Description implies usage for mana base construction in deck building but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. Sibling tools do not overlap directly, so the context is clear enough.

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