list_decks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as read-only (listing) and specifies the return fields. However, it doesn't mention potential behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or authentication, which are minor omissions for a simple list tool.

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: two sentences that cover purpose, ordering, definition, and return fields. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 no parameters or output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. It explains the concept of a deck and the sorting, making it self-contained.

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% (0 parameters), so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter info (none exist) but provides context on the return values, which is adequate.

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 lists decks in the configured Space with specific ordering (newest-edited first). It defines what a deck is and specifies the return fields, distinguishing it from siblings like create_deck or get_deck.

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 implies usage for listing decks but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't say 'use get_deck for a single deck' or 'use list_diagrams for diagrams.' The context is clear but not directive.

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