Get deck options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the actual payload shape, notably that the options group carries a config `id` usable downstream. It stops short of stating error behavior for a nonexistent deck.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the return contents without filler. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what it will receive.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value information, and it does so by listing the settings the config contains plus the `id`. For a single-parameter, annotated read tool this is nearly complete; only failure behavior for an invalid deck name is absent.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Deck name.'), so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description only refers to 'the given deck' and adds no format, case-sensitivity, or resolution details beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Returns the options group used by the given deck') and enumerates the returned content: new card/review limits, learning steps, lapse settings, and config `id`. No sibling tool returns deck configuration, so an agent can distinguish it from deck_names/get_decks 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers 'use this when you need the current options for a specific deck.' There is no explicit statement about when not to use it, no mention of the alternative ways to enumerate decks (deck_names, get_decks), and no guidance on what happens if the deck name is unknown.

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