list_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about ordering, pagination, result size limits, or how an unrecognized kind is handled. For a bulk-listing tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable omission.

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 economical sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and the optional narrowing clause attached at the end. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 values need not be explained, and the one parameter's value domain is fully enumerated. What remains missing is listing behavior such as ordering/pagination and invalid-input handling, which is minor for this complexity level.

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 0% and 'kind' has no enum or description, so the description does real work by enumerating the six allowed values and marking the filter as optional ('optionally of one kind'). It compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't say whether kind matching is case-sensitive or what happens on an invalid value.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('cards') and scope ('every card in the book'), which implicitly contrasts with the single-card siblings read_card and write_card. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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: 'every card in the book' suggests bulk retrieval versus reading one card, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of which sibling to pick instead. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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