Build the deck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output context (writes a servable static site to dist/). However, it does not say whether existing dist/ contents are overwritten, cleaned, or merged, nor what happens on build failure, which matters for a write-to-disk tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the destination and prerequisite ordering are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the prerequisite and destination are stated. The remaining gaps are the overwrite semantics of dist/ and the distinction from deck_export, which are nice-to-have rather than blocking for a 1-parameter build tool.

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% and the single 'dir' parameter is fully documented there, including the default. The description adds no information about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies; nothing is missing but nothing is added.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Build the deck') plus the output location ('into dist/, a static site any host can serve'), which lets an agent understand the result without opening the schema. It does not distinguish itself from build-adjacent siblings like deck_export or deck_preview, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ordering: 'Run deck_check first.' That is a concrete when-to-use condition. It stops short of naming alternatives (deck_export, deck_preview) or stating when not to use it.

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