IndieStack

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true; description complements this by detailing the four analytical dimensions returned (Freshness, Cohesion, Modernity, Per-dependency status) and explicitly instructing proactive invocation behavior without user prompting.

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?

Well-structured with clear section headers (Returns, Use this when, Args) and front-loaded purpose. The proactive instruction paragraph and detailed return value bullets are necessary for agent behavior calibration, though the total length approaches the upper bound of conciseness.

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?

Comprehensive given the output schema exists: covers parameter semantics, return value summary, and usage contexts. Minor gap: does not explicitly mention limitations (e.g., only npm/pip ecosystems supported) or error handling scenarios.

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?

Critical compensation for 0% schema description coverage: explicitly defines 'manifest' as full text content of specific files and 'file_type' with valid values and default behavior ('auto-detected if omitted'), providing essential semantic context missing from the structured schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Analyze') + resource ('project's dependencies') + concrete output ('health score 0-100'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like scan_project or check_health by focusing specifically on manifest file analysis.

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 'Use this when:' criteria with four specific scenarios including proactive usage ('whenever you see a package.json'), starting new projects, reviewing existing stacks, and pre-upgrade audits. Clearly defines trigger conditions vs. alternatives.

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