get_on_deck

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the clarification that 'on deck' means 'continue watching,' which is useful, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or scope limitations (e.g., whether fully watched items are excluded).

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 nearly as short as possible while still being informative: 'Get on deck (continue watching) items.' The parenthetical adds value without unnecessary words, and the key verb is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but is not fully complete. It does not explain exactly what qualifies as 'on deck' (e.g., progress percentage, whether started items are included) or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The lack of linkage to alternatives reduces completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to explain what each parameter means.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('on deck items'), with the parenthetical '(continue watching)' disambiguating the meaning of 'on deck.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recently_watched or get_watch_history.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not say 'use this for in-progress items, while get_recently_watched is for anything recently viewed.' This leaves the agent without context for selecting among many similar retrieval tools.

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