get_metagame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only lookup behavior ('Return') and notes the 'normalized' aggregation, but it does not state whether results are paginated, sorted, or restricted by other implicit filters. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then clarifies the source parameter. No filler or redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the schema supplies the default for 'source'. However, the description omits any list or hint of accepted format values, and there is no mention of output shape or sample usage. It is adequate for a basic request but leaves an agent unsure about valid format inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'source' by listing allowed values (all, mtgo, major), but it does not elaborate on the 'format' parameter beyond 'a format', leaving a clear gap about what format strings are valid. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Return') and resource ('normalized archetype shares for a format'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It also identifies the 'source' filter options, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve decks (get_recent_decks, get_archetype_decks, get_top_performing_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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling deck-retrieval tools. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer use cases from the tool name and description alone.

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