get_recent_decks

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, how pagination works, how results are sorted, or what limits apply; it only restates the query shape and optional filters.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns points for brevity, though the terse wording sacrifices important details.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits format guidance, pagination semantics, and sibling differentiation, so an agent cannot reliably know how to construct required arguments or choose this tool over similar ones.

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 for 'platform' and 'game_type' but does not explain the required 'format' field, valid values, or what 'max_pages' controls, leaving the agent with insufficient input guidance.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('recent deck rows') along with optional filters for platform and game type. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like get_metagame or get_top_performing_decks through the 'recent' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_metagame, get_archetype_decks, or get_top_performing_decks. It implies a recency-based use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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