get_deck

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention that the tool likely retrieves a deck, its safety profile (read-only vs. mutating), or any side effects. The phrase 'local study app tool' is non-committal and uninformative.

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 only five words, which is excessively terse and fails to convey essential information. Brevity without substance undermines the goal of helping an agent select and use the tool correctly.

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 array of sibling tools focused on studying (e.g., start_study_app, get_due_cards, list_decks), this description does not clarify how get_deck fits in. The agent cannot distinguish it from list_decks or open_study_app without additional clues.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is not required to elaborate on parameters. However, it does not add any context about what the tool returns or how to interpret results, which would be valuable given no output schema.

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 'Local study app tool' is extremely vague and does not specify the action of getting a deck or the resource involved. It barely adds meaning beyond the tool name, making it insufficient for an agent to understand its purpose.

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 its siblings like list_decks, open_study_app, or create_deck. The agent is left without context for appropriate invocation.

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