List decks with IDs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return structure, but says nothing about ordering, whether subdeck names are fully qualified with '::', or whether names can collide.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the return shape and contains no filler. Every clause carries 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece, namely what is returned. It is only slightly short of complete because it omits how sibling listing tools differ and any note on deck-name qualification.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not invent parameter discussion.

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 and, unusually, also states the return shape: an object mapping deck name to deck ID. It does not distinguish this from the sibling tools deck_names and get_decks, which likely overlap, so the agent must guess which of the three to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives deck_names, get_decks, or model_names_and_ids, which appear to cover similar ground. The agent is left to infer whether this is the cheap name-to-ID lookup versus a full deck-object fetch.

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