Local marketplace index

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that the tool writes a file and is destructive, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. It also says the index is consumed by other tools, explaining the side effect's role. The description does not contradict annotations (annotation_contradiction=false).

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. The first sentence states the action and resources, the second adds usage context and the destructive nature. Every sentence adds value, and it is effectively front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple parameter set and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, and relation to siblings. It does not detail the index structure or potential errors, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool. Slightly more detail on the default behavior of out_file would improve completeness.

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 input schema has two parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'Scan a local package directory' (implying package_dir) and 'write an index' (implying out_file), but does not explain parameter details like format, defaults, or constraints. The description provides minimal but functional context for parameter meaning.

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 action ('Scan' and 'write an index') and the resource ('local package directory' of installable tdmcp packages). It also explains the purpose: making a folder browsable and installable as a local marketplace, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that consume the index (browse_library, install_library_package).

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use it to make a folder of components browsable and installable as a simple local marketplace.' It also names the tools that consume the output, implicitly indicating that this tool is the creation step before using those. It does not define when not to use it or compare to similar sibling tools like generate_library_index, but the guidance is clear enough.

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