Build decks from the collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this admirably, explaining the deterministic algorithm, the grouping by evolution lines, exact deck-size assembly, the counter-score minimization for deck_count=2, and validation against check_deck rules. It doesn't disclose the return format, but the core behavioral traits are 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?

The description is dense but efficient, packing a large amount of algorithmic detail into two sentences. The first sentence is long and complex, but each clause adds necessary information; a slight restructure could improve readability, but it is not wasteful.

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 algorithmic complexity and absence of an output schema, the description provides a remarkably complete overview: the internal strategy, constraints, validation, and optimization behavior. It stops short of describing the exact return value or structure, but the overall behavior is well specified.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for most parameters, and the description adds algorithmic context that enriches understanding (e.g., deck_size affects proportional scaling, deck_count triggers the rebuild-and-minimize process, owned_only controls proxy suggestions). This goes beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 specific verb ('build') and identifies the resource ('decks from the collection'), and further distinguishes itself by describing its deterministic, evolution-based approach. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like search_cards or check_deck.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a deterministic deck built from the local collection, with optional optimization for two decks. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is unambiguous, and the mention of 'validates with the check_deck rules' hints at a complementary relationship with check_deck.

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