get_on_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic purpose. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, response format, or pagination behavior. For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise at 10 words, with the key verb and resource front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary behavioral context, making it slightly too terse for optimal clarity. It earns high marks for brevity but not for completeness.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of media items). It also does not contextualize the 'limit' parameter or mention any typical usage patterns. The description is incomplete for a tool with no annotations or output 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 coverage is 100% as the only parameter 'limit' is fully described with a default value. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves 'On Deck' items, which are 'continue watching' items for users. The verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'On Deck items' make the purpose unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_recently_added' or 'get_watch_history'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool over others like 'get_watched_status' or 'get_watch_history'.

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