due_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return format, sorting, empty case, and optional filter. However, it omits behavior related to the limit parameter and does not explicitly state that it is read-only or safe.

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?

The description is extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the main purpose, then cover options, return format, and usage hint. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 the simple schema (two parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filter, return format, and usage. The omission of the limit parameter's meaning is a minor gap that slightly reduces completeness.

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?

The description clarifies the `deck` parameter as a filter, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the `limit` parameter (default 20) is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unclear. With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 clearly states the tool lists cards due for review, with a specific scope (due <= now) and ordering (soonest first). It distinguishes from siblings like list_cards by focusing on due cards, and it explicitly outlines the return format and workflow.

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?

The description implies a workflow: fetch due cards, then grade each using grade_card. It mentions filtering by deck. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like list_cards or state when not to use it, which would strengthen guidance.

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