List Decks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a useful behavioral detail about using official hierarchical deck names. No contradiction, but no further disclosure about return format, pagination, or error 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource without unnecessary words. The format is ideal for quick scanning.

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 read-only listing tool, the description conveys the core behavior effectively. However, with no output schema and an undocumented optional profileId, it is not fully complete, though the essential use case is covered.

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 no parameter descriptions and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the optional profileId parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. This is insufficient even for a single optional 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?

Clearly states it lists available Anki decks, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'decks'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like ensure_deck (create/update) and list_note_types (different resource).

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 intended use is implied by the description: when you need to see available decks. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives, though the sibling names provide some differentiation.

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