imscc_build_cartridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses prerequisites and output format, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or behavior with missing parameters. It adds some value beyond the schema.

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?

Three concise sentences, each delivering essential information: purpose, prerequisites, and output. No filler or 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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention return value, error conditions, or how the parameters are used to generate the cartridge.

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 description does not address any parameters despite 70% schema description coverage. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which already has terse descriptions for most parameters. The tool has 10 parameters with nested objects, so more guidance is needed.

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 builds a Canvas Common Cartridge (.imscc) using the Ruby canvas_cc gem. It specifies the output type and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (reference, check, example) which serve different purposes.

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 when to use the tool (to create an .imscc file) and mentions prerequisites (Ruby+Bundler and bundle install). It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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