deck_draw

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether drawing modifies the deck (removes cards), what happens when the deck is empty, if there's a limit on count, or any authentication needs. The only behavioral hint is the default count from the schema, not the description. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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, efficient sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is arguably too brief, missing key context that would earn a 5 for structure.

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, no output schema, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., list of cards), side effects, or prerequisites. For a tool that likely mutates state, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (count and deck_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain constraints on count or deck_id format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 states a specific verb (draw) and resource (cards from a deck), which is clear. However, it is quite terse and doesn't differentiate from siblings like deck_new or deck_shuffle, nor does it specify the scope (e.g., draw from an existing deck vs create a new one). It's minimally viable but lacks the specificity of a 4 or 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that a deck must be created first (deck_new) or if it can be shuffled (deck_shuffle). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The description merely repeats the core action.

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