List Cards

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic listing action. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. An agent has to infer safe usage from the word 'list'.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly improved by adding important details without becoming long.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and two parameters, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the output format, pagination behavior, or the default limit value. An agent cannot fully understand what to expect from the tool invocation.

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 description adds no meaning to the input parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the text only says 'List card sides in a deck', which does not explain that deck_name is required or what limit controls. An agent would have no additional context to correctly fill parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'card sides in a deck', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cards or delete_cards. However, the phrase 'uses Basic model' is ambiguous and may confuse an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that it's for listing all cards in a deck, while update_card or delete_cards are for specific cards. No when-not-to-use or context is provided.

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