List commands, themes, layouts, shapes, transitions, animations, formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful fact that this is a discovery surface (what commands exist, with their parameters and ribbon placement), but says nothing about return volume, filtering/pagination behavior, or how large these catalogs get.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource declared first and the capability list front-loaded in parentheses. Every clause carries information; only the nested parentheticals make it slightly scannable-hostile.

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?

For a two-parameter, low-complexity discovery tool with no output schema, the description gives a decent sense of what each kind returns, but does not sketch the shape of entries (id/label/category fields) or note that filter matches across id, label, place and category as the schema states. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about result structure.

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 50%: 'filter' is documented in the schema, while 'kind' has only an enum. The description compensates partially by explaining what each enum kind actually contains (commands carry parameters and ribbon place, shapes are preset names, etc.), which adds real meaning for 'kind'. But it never mentions the 'filter' parameter or how it interacts with the chosen kind, leaving half the parameter surface schema-driven.

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 the resource (a DeckCraft capability catalog) and enumerates exactly the seven kinds it can return, so an agent knows precisely what it fetches. It even cross-references the sibling consuming one kind ('for run_deckcraft_commands'). It stops short of a crisp verb-first statement ('List...'), but the intent is unambiguous against siblings.

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?

There is an implicit discovery-then-invoke flow and one useful routing hint that command data feeds run_deckcraft_commands, which implies 'call this before building commands'. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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