encode_cards_tool

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

The description explains the core encoding algorithm, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Without annotations, the description carries the burden, and while it explains what the tool does, it omits details like return value or idempotency.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key concept (magician Chico's operation) and is structurally sound, though the sentence is somewhat long.

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 tool's complexity (a specific card trick), the description partially explains the logic but assumes knowledge of 'magician Chico'. The output schema is present but not described. The sibling tool 'decode_cards_tool' is listed, providing some context, but the description itself is not fully self-contained.

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 already provides a detailed description of the 'cards' parameter including format, suit, and rank options. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: reordering five cards and encoding the fifth card's information into the order of the first four. It uses a specific verb ('implements', 'reorder', 'encode') and identifies the resource (cards). It also distinguishes from its sibling tool 'decode_cards_tool' by context.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to encode vs. decode). No prerequisites or prohibitions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling.

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