IndieStack

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds valuable return structure context ('grouped by category, with integration report counts, verified stacks... and conflict warnings') and data provenance ('agent-verified integrations'). Does not cover error cases or pagination, but output schema exists to cover return details.

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 front-loaded purpose statement, followed by invocation timing, return value summary, workflow pattern, and parameter documentation. No redundant sentences; every line advances understanding of tool usage or semantics.

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 coverage given 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and existing output schema. Description addresses all parameters, provides workflow context, and explains return value categories. Sufficient for agent to invoke correctly without consulting external documentation.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description fully compensates via Args section: slug includes example ('supabase') and source ('find_tools() results'), category includes purpose ('filter companions') and example ('authentication'), min_success_count explains semantics ('integration reports') and default.

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?

Specific verb 'Find' with clear resource 'tools' and scope 'known to work well with a specific tool'. Effectively distinguishes from siblings like find_tools (general search) and check_compatibility (pairwise checking) by focusing on companion discovery post-selection.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance: 'Call this after selecting a tool', 'Use this for stack assembly: pick your first tool, then find_compatible() to build around it'. Also specifies input source dependency: 'Get slugs from find_tools() results'. Contrasts with guessing alternatives.

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