Check the deck

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the full taxonomy of what gets linted and the severity model ('Errors break the deck') implied by the checks. Return format is deferred to the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Lint the deck:' and organized as a single dense enumeration of check categories followed by a severity/action sentence. The list is long and run-on but each item defines scope, so it earns its place; slightly better separation would help readability.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the read-only profile. It fully documents the lint coverage and the fix-before-render expectation. Minor gap: no mention of how to scope the lint (dir) or disable compilation, though the schema covers that.

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 100%, so both `dir` and `compile` are already documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention either parameter directly; 'MDX that does not compile' hints at the compile toggle but adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb+resource ('Lint the deck') and enumerates the exact check categories (YAML, frontmatter keys, layouts, MDX compile errors, JSX imports, src: includes, media, glossary, code fences, merge conflicts). This clearly separates it from siblings like deck_build, deck_preview, or deck_conflicts.

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 clear context: 'Errors break the deck; fix them before rendering,' which implies running this before deck_render/deck_build. It also routes merge-conflict resolution to deck_resolve. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance against deck_build or deck_conflicts, but the usage context is clear.

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