Get example deck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the dual-mode return behavior, the shape of the full deck (slides, design, motion), and the presence of a 'why it works' rationale.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the mode split is front-loaded and the usage instruction follows immediately. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns - and it does, for both modes, including the shape matching create_deck's input. Nothing required to call this single-optional-param tool correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum values are fully documented, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what each mode actually returns - purpose/audience/layouts for the list, full deck contents for the id case - adding meaning the schema's 'Omit to list all' does not convey.

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 ('Returns a proven example deck') and immediately distinguishes the two operational modes: listing without id, full deck with id. This is a distinct function from siblings like get_deck or get_design_guide.

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?

Gives clear workflow guidance: read the closest example before choosing layouts, then preserve structure/rhythm/text lengths while replacing content. It implies the relationship to create_deck but never names an alternative tool explicitly or states when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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