List Decks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: decks whose generation is still running or never completed are silently omitted from results, which would otherwise look like missing data.

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. The core capability comes first and the exclusion caveat follows immediately where it is most useful.

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 explanation is unnecessary, and the key trap (empty decks omitted) is disclosed. Minor gaps remain around pagination result shape and what the search string matches, but nothing that would cause an incorrect call.

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 description coverage is only 17%, so the description has to carry weight; it names the filter categories (project, flag, sort, search, pagination) which map onto project_id, flag, sort, search, page, and limit. It adds no detail on search matching semantics, flag values, or sort ordering beyond what the schema enums already state, so it only partially compensates.

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 accessible decks") and enumerates the filter dimensions (project, flag, sort, search, pagination). The closing clause routes the agent to the id-based sibling (get_deck), so it is distinguishable from siblings without opening a schema.

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 a concrete usage rule: decks with no slides are excluded from this listing and must be fetched by id instead. That is a real when-to-use/when-not-to-use distinction, though it does not cover choices against other list-style siblings such as list_projects.

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