IndieStack

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral context: return values ('recommended tools, matching curated stacks, estimated tokens saved'), catalog scope ('6,500+'), and efficiency metrics ('50,000-token... into 2,000-token'). Does not contradict read-only nature.

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 value proposition front-loaded ('Assemble...'), followed by mechanics, usage conditions, and efficiency justification. The Args block is clearly demarcated. Zero redundant sentences; every line advances understanding.

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 2-parameter tool with existing output schema, description is complete. Covers input format, output summary, usage triggers, performance characteristics, and parameter semantics without needing to duplicate structured output schema details.

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 0%, requiring description to carry full burden. Args section fully compensates: 'needs' includes format (comma-separated) with concrete example ('auth,payments...'), and 'budget' specifies units (USD), scope (per tool), and semantics of default value (0 = no limit).

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 uses specific verb 'Assemble' with clear resource 'complete tool stack' and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'proven components instead of generating from scratch' and referencing the '6,500+ IndieStack catalog.'

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 scenarios ('starting a new project, planning architecture, or asking "what should I use for X"'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named sibling alternatives (e.g., vs. find_tools for single tools).

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