Create sequential list card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful detail about the automatic hierarchical numbering and rendering behavior, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, nesting limits, or whether the operation is purely non-destructive. The 'Render' wording implies a UI action without further clarification.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and immediately followed by relevant use cases. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the core purpose and typical use cases, making it minimally viable for selection. However, it omits guidance on optional parameters such as intro, subtitle, tutorTerms, and contextActions, and it does not clarify return/output behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but with six parameters and no annotations, the description is not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with tutorTerms and contextActions being the only documented parameters. The tool description does not explain title, subtitle, intro, or the items structure beyond implying nesting, nor does it compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds some value by stating that numbering is automatic, but most parameter semantics remain under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Render') and identifies the exact resource ('nested ordered list card') with an explicit numbering format. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling card tools like create_table_card or create_tab_card by emphasizing hierarchical ordered lists.

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 gives clear use-case guidance: 'Good for procedures, outlines, and curricula.' It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the provided contexts are sufficient for an agent to decide when this card type is appropriate.

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