tft-meta-trend-deck-list

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

Annotations indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world tool. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as it doesn't specify what 'current meta decks' entails (e.g., update frequency, data source, or format). However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the baseline with some added value.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 tool's complexity (simple retrieval with no parameters), annotations cover safety aspects, and no output schema exists, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on what 'meta decks' includes (e.g., deck lists, win rates, tiers) or return format, which could help an agent use it correctly.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 for not requiring compensation.

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 tool's purpose as 'retrieving current meta decks' for TFT, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'tft-champion-item-build' or 'tft-meta-item-combinations' that might also relate to TFT meta information, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for competitive play or casual use, or how it differs from other TFT-related tools in the sibling list.

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