IndieStack

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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the return contains 'slugs you can pass directly to find_tools(category=...)' and quantifies the scope ('25 categories'). It does not contradict the readOnly annotation.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose, the second and third provide usage guidelines with specific sibling references, and the fourth adds contextual scope (25 categories). Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the output contains (slugs, tool counts), quantifies the dataset (25 categories), and describes the primary integration point (find_tools). No gaps remain given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, which per the rules establishes a baseline of 4. The description implicitly confirms no filtering is needed by emphasizing it lists 'all' categories, aligning with the empty input 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 ('List') and resource ('IndieStack categories') plus a key attribute ('with tool counts'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tags and list_stacks by focusing specifically on categories and their relationship to find_tools().

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?

Explicitly states two clear when-to-use scenarios: 'when you're unsure what category slug to pass to find_tools()' and 'when you want to survey the full landscape.' It also identifies the specific sibling tool (find_tools) that consumes this tool's output, creating a clear workflow.

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