Kadal Deck reference

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

The annotations already mark it read-only and closed-world, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: no-argument calls list all sections, search covers the whole catalog, and output can be markdown or raw JSON. It does not cover error behavior or output structure, but the read-only annotations lower the burden.

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?

One compact paragraph front-loads the lookup purpose, then the parameters, then the no-args behavior and usage advice. The long section list is dense but functional, and no sentence is 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?

For a read-only reference tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, section list, search, no-args behavior, format, and when to consult it. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the valid section names and clarifying that a name is optional or free-text search is allowed. That is enough for a 4.

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 gives a clear lookup verb and enumerates the reference resource (components, layouts, themes, CLI, etc.), so the agent can tell this is a catalog lookup rather than a mutation. It does not explicitly name or rule out the closest sibling (deck_frontmatter_schema) when the topic is frontmatter, so sibling differentiation is strong but not complete.

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 gives a direct usage rule: 'Use it before writing a component or option you have not checked,' and it explains the no-argument fallback. It does not say when not to use it or name alternatives such as deck_frontmatter_schema, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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