answer_cards

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

No annotations provided; description states 'as if reviewed' but does not disclose behavioral traits like scheduling impact, error handling, or mutable state changes. Lacks necessary transparency for a mutation 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?

Minimal and efficient: two sentences including a clear data format example. No redundant information.

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 presence of output schema (not shown but referenced), description is mostly complete for a straightforward tool. Could benefit from mentioning batch behavior or error handling, but adequate for simple card answering.

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 0%; description partially explains parameter as array of objects with cardId and ease, adding value beyond bare schema. However, does not fully specify nested structure or whether fields are required.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'answer cards' and provides format details (cardId, ease 1-4). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'gui_answer_card' which is GUI-based.

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?

Implies usage for automated answering but gives no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or prerequisites. No when-not-to-use stated.

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