deck_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the create-and-shuffle action. It says nothing about whether a deck identifier is returned, whether state persists for later draws, or any side effects of creating a new deck.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

For a simple zero-required-parameter constructor with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation. It falls slightly short by not hinting at the returned deck handle that downstream tools like deck_draw would need, but the tool itself is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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?

There is one optional parameter with 100% schema coverage ('Number of decks (default 1)'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no extra meaning about deck_count, which is the expected baseline when the schema does 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 gives a specific verb phrase and resource ('Create and shuffle a new deck of cards'), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like deck_shuffle or deck_draw, leaving the create-vs-shuffle distinction implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for starting with a fresh shuffled deck before drawing or shuffling. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite deck_shuffle and deck_draw existing as obvious siblings.

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