Create show/hide card

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

The description explains rendering details: code fields become monospace blocks with a copy button, tutor terms render as underlined micro-tips with longest-first matching and case-sensitivity. No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden and does it well. It could mention more about interactions beyond the described behaviors, but it's solid.

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?

Description is focused and dense, listing use cases and key behavior without verbose filler. The tutorTerms description is long but necessarily detailed for precise matching semantics.

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?

Covers what the card does, when to use it, and rendering details. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use and alternatives, but with no annotations and a complex schema, it's adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema covers parameter types and minItems, and the description adds meaning: code renders as monospace with copy button, text is plain, tutorTerms matching rules. Some params like subtitle and open are left plain, but overall usage is clear.

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 names a specific deliverable — a card of collapsible show/hide sections with show-all/hide-all buttons — and lists concrete use cases (step-by-step guides, FAQs, spoilers, long reference material). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from typical siblings like tab or code-tour cards.

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?

It explicitly says it's good for step-by-step guides, FAQs, spoilers, and long reference material, which gives clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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