get_on_deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate as it misses key behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication or how it handles large datasets.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'On Deck items' are in detail, how they're structured, or what the return values look like. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, more context is needed to help the agent understand the full scope and usage.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, documenting 'limit' as the maximum number of items to return with a default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'On Deck items' entail or how ordering works. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get' and the resource 'On Deck items (continue watching) for users', which specifies what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_watch_history' or 'get_recently_added' by focusing on 'continue watching' items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_watched_status', which might relate to similar data.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_watch_history' or 'get_recently_added'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone. This is a significant gap for a tool in a server with many related siblings.

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