deck_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the return payload shape (array of Deck with three count fields), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, empty-state behavior, or the openWorldHint=true remote aspect.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the return value. No filler, though the second sentence is slightly redundant with the first's mention of card counts.

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 read tool this is close to sufficient, and the description does cover the return shape in lieu of an output schema. But the "Deck" object and the three count meanings are left undefined, and there is no guidance on when this beats sibling listing tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. However, the description also introduces the returned fields "due, learn, and new" without defining them, which is where clarity is actually needed; that falls short of a full 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all decks") plus what each entry contains (due, learn, and new card counts), which is more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like deck_limits or deck_triage, leaving the agent to infer why one would list decks rather than query limits.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among a large sibling set (deck_limits, deck_triage, search, sql). The agent must derive the call context entirely on its own.

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