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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return content (a checklist of questions plus dependent metadata types), which is the key behavioral fact and useful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about whether component keys are validated, what happens on an unknown key, or how dependency resolution is performed.

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 sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient, and it partly compensates for the absent output schema by characterizing the return value. It stops short of telling the agent how to discover valid component keys, which is relevant given the sibling list.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `component` parameter is well documented, so the baseline is 3. The parenthetical examples ("journey, automation") merely repeat the schema's own examples and add no new semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Return") and a concrete resource ("structured checklist of questions and dependent metadata types"), scoped to authoring/migrating SFMC components. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like mcdev_list_metadata_types, which also deals with metadata types, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase "for authoring or migrating SFMC components" gives an implicit usage context, but there is no statement of when NOT to use it and no named alternative (e.g. use mcdev_list_metadata_types to enumerate valid keys). The agent is left to infer.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return shape ('short summary and wiki file hints'), which is useful. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether explanations are static or project-aware, so gaps remain.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target, examples, and the output in a compact form. The example key list slightly duplicates the schema's known-keys list, which is minor 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only explainer with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the target concept space and what comes back (summary plus wiki hints). Only the relationship to sibling lookup tools is left implicit.

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% and the single 'topic' parameter already documents its known keys in the schema description. The description's parenthetical key list adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Explain) and resource (.mcdevrc.json concept) and gives concrete example keys, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like read_mcdev_project_config or mcdev_search_docs, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for learning what a config concept means, as opposed to read_mcdev_project_config (reads an actual project's values) or mcdev_search_docs (free-text docs search). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the list is derived from the installed package (Mcdev.explainTypes), meaning results vary by version, and 'List' implies a read operation. It does not state return shape, ordering, or whether the result is exhaustive.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the optional filter noted at the end. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 no-required-param, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, the definition plus source provenance is nearly sufficient. The one omission is any hint about what the returned type entries look like, which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the filter as 'Case-insensitive filter on name or apiName.' The description's 'Optional filter substring' merely restates this at a higher level and adds no new syntax or matching detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: lists metadata types, and identifies the data source (installed mcdev package / Mcdev.explainTypes). An agent can distinguish it from search_docs or explain_config_key, though it never explicitly names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named among the four sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step for available metadata types before other mcdev operations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the corpus origin (bundled Markdown sourced from the GitHub wiki), implying local/offline retrieval and possible staleness, but says nothing about ranking, snippet format, or freshness relative to the live wiki.

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 with the verb and corpus stated first, followed by the topical scope. No filler, though the trailing keyword list reads more like tags than prose.

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?

Adequate for a two-parameter search tool, but with no output schema and no annotations the description leaves the return shape (file paths? snippets? scores?) unstated and gives no hint about result freshness or whether the query supports multiple keywords. Minimum viable rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query, limit with default 8 and max 25) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only topical keyword hints for what a query should contain; baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a precisely bounded resource (bundled sfmc-devtools wiki Markdown from GitHub wiki), plus the topical coverage: configuration, commands, markets, createDeltaPkg, build, validations. This scope makes it distinguishable from topical siblings like mcdev_explain_config_key, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 topic list implies when the tool is useful (questions about mcdev config, commands, build/validation), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as mcdev_explain_config_key for single-key questions. Usage is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the file being read and an important safety boundary ('never reads `.mcdev-auth.json`'), but it omits error behavior if the file is missing, whether the read is purely side-effect-free, and what the tool returns beyond a vague mention of inspecting markets and marketList.

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 two well-formed sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a concise usage note. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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, single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the file, an exclusion, and a primary use case. It could be stronger by briefly stating the return shape or error behavior, but no major element needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter `workspaceRoot`, and the schema already defines it as an absolute path to the project root. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read `.mcdevrc.json` from a workspace path'. It also distinguishes the target from a related file by noting it 'never reads `.mcdev-auth.json`'. However, it does not differentiate its purpose from any of the listed sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives one intended use: 'Use to inspect markets and marketList with the assistant.' This implies when the tool is useful but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as mcdev_explain_config_key.

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