Generate library index

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description of writing a note. The description adds that it requires TDMCP_VAULT_PATH, reads from disk, and writes an index. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context about prerequisites and output.

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 a single paragraph of about 4 sentences. It front-loads the core action and then provides key details efficiently. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filtering, thumbnail behavior, output path, and prerequisites. It is mostly complete but could briefly mention what happens when overwrite is false or if thumbnails are 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 descriptions cover all 6 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the output format (grid of cards, load snippet) and the role of thumbnails (<stem>.png sibling). This complements the schema well, raising the score above baseline.

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's action: 'Write one Markdown contact-sheet note of the whole vault library'. It specifies the asset types (recipes, shaders, etc.) and output format (grid of cards with thumbnails, title, tags, load snippet). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_library or list_recipes which are for individual browsing, not index generation.

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 mentions 'No TouchDesigner connection required' and 'reads the local vault on disk and writes the index note', clarifying when the tool is appropriate. It also mentions filtering by category and query. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to use this over alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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