Get Deck

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description's added value is the export-URL caveat: download links open without a key and expire in 15 minutes. That is a genuine operational fact an agent could not obtain from the structured fields.

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, zero filler, with the returned payload listed first and the expiry caveat second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the tool is simple (one required id, read-only). The description still covers the payload and the URL expiry, leaving only minor gaps such as behavior when the deck_id does not exist.

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?

Only one parameter, deck_id, with 0% schema description coverage, but its name and uuid format make it self-explanatory. The description adds nothing about the identifier's source (e.g. from list_decks), so it sits at an adequate baseline rather than excelling.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Fetch') and the exact payload: deck metadata, latest generation status, and export artifacts. That distinguishes it from list_decks (enumeration), get_task, and get_export, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_export, get_task, or list_decks, and no preconditions. Usage is only inferable from the required deck_id and the payload description.

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