analyze_mana_curve

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no additional behavioral traits such as output format, performance, or effects. The description only restates the purpose without expanding on behavior.

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?

Extremely concise with only two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then the parameter reference. No unnecessary words.

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 simple analysis tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks examples or clarification of the input format beyond referencing price_deck. The output is not described, but since an output schema exists, this is acceptable. Still, more context about the analysis results would improve completeness.

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 single parameter 'decklist' is described as having 'Same format as price_deck', which provides useful cross-reference despite lacking explicit format details. Schema description coverage is 0%, so this reference partially compensates, but the format remains unclear without knowledge of price_deck.

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 analyzes mana curve, lands, and color sources using a verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from siblings like price_deck which do pricing, making the purpose clear although it could be more specific about the analysis scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is that the decklist format matches price_deck, but no mention of prerequisites, timing, or when not to use this tool.

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