get_deck

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to state it's read-only. It adds authentication context (requires IWMM_API_KEY) but no further behavioral details such as rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary wording. Front-loaded with the core function, then additional detail about authorization.

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 single-parameter input, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool returns (deck with mainboard+sideboard). Could mention the response structure briefly but not essential.

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 covers deckId with description and constraints. Description adds value by telling the user to obtain deckId from list_decks or create_deck, which is helpful context beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves one deck including its mainboard and sideboard cards, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_decks which lists decks without cards, and create_deck which creates decks.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that deckId can come from list_decks or create_deck, but does not explain when to prefer this over other get tools or when not to use it.

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