get_new_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the return format (JSON with 'count' and 'cards' array), details of each card (cardId, question, answer, due), and ordering ('by card position in new queue'). This covers key behavioral aspects like output structure and sorting, though it doesn't mention potential errors or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details about the return format and ordering. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by detailing the return format and card structure. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and behavioral traits adequately. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination or error cases, leaving minor gaps for a read operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'num' fully documented in the schema as a required positive integer. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Retrieve new unseen cards that haven't been studied yet'), identifies the resource (cards), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_due_cards' by specifying 'new unseen cards' rather than due cards. The verb 'retrieve' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('new unseen cards that haven't been studied yet'), which implicitly differentiates it from siblings like 'get_due_cards' for due cards or 'get_card' for a specific card. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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