list_explore_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list but says nothing about the significant expansions parameter, which silently falls back to game context or base game, nor about ordering, pagination, or return shape. Given the sibling tools set/clear/get_game_context, omitting this fallback behavior is a real gap.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the optional filter trailing. No waste, appropriate size.

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 two-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, one sentence nearly suffices. However, the interaction between the expansions parameter and game context is never surfaced, leaving an agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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 100%, so both parameters (trait and expansions) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description enumerates the trait enum values, which merely repeats the schema, and adds nothing about the expansions parameter.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("List TI4 exploration cards") and names the filterable dimension, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_action_cards or list_agendas. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with other card-listing tools.

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?

"optionally filtered by trait" implies when the trait filter is useful, but there is no guidance on when to omit trait, no mention of the expansions parameter's effect, and no named alternatives. Usage is only implied.

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