Tap

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

Adds significant strategic context beyond annotations: explains tap.run executes with 'zero AI, faster and more stable than manual tap operations' and warns against replicating tap functionality manually. Does not describe return format or pagination, which would achieve a 5.

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 sentences totaling ~35 words with zero waste: sentence 1 defines purpose, sentence 2 gives primary usage instruction with performance rationale, sentence 3 warns against anti-patterns. Perfectly front-loaded and dense.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, sibling relationships (tap.run preference), performance characteristics, and workflow integration. The 100% schema coverage (trivially) and explicit usage guidelines make this 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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. No parameter compensation 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?

Description states specific verb ('List') and resource ('taps'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by establishing this as the discovery/catalog tool for the tap ecosystem rather than an operational tap.* tool.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('ALWAYS call this first before any tap.* tool'), names specific alternative ('use tap.run'), and includes anti-pattern warnings ('NEVER bypass a tap by using manual tap.* calls'), giving complete workflow guidance.

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