List Hand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions sorting by 'hand order', which adds some behavioral context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the hand is empty. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('List cards in the user's hand') and adds clarifying details ('personal work queue, sorted by hand order') without any wasted words. Every part contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the sorting behavior, but as a read operation with no annotations, it could benefit from more context on permissions or output format to be fully complete for an agent.

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 appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and behavior, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('List cards') and the target resource ('in the user's hand'), with the clarifying note that this refers to a 'personal work queue'. It distinguishes from generic list tools like 'list_cards' by specifying the hand context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'remove_from_hand' or 'add_to_hand'.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for viewing the hand's contents, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'list_cards' (which might list all cards) or other sibling tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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