IndieStack

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

Annotations provide only title, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable context about side effects ('Builds the compatibility graph'). However, missing idempotency guarantees, error conditions, or data retention policies that would help an agent understand failure modes or retry behavior.

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?

Three declarative sentences followed by structured Args block. No filler text; every sentence conveys essential purpose, timing, or behavioral effect. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Appropriate for a 2-parameter reporting tool. Covers invocation trigger, expected inputs, and system effect. Since output schema exists (per context signals), the description appropriately omits return value details. Minor gap in explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section effectively compensates by documenting both parameters: identifies acceptable formats ('Slug or name') and semantics ('first tool' vs 'second tool'). Would benefit from explicit mention of whether order matters or if tools are interchangeable.

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?

Clear verb ('Report') and resource (compatibility between tools), with specific context ('IndieStack tools'). Explains the effect ('Builds the compatibility graph'). Lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like check_compatibility or confirm_integration, though the 'after successfully integrating' timing provides implicit distinction.

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 temporal guidance ('Call this after successfully integrating') provides strong context for when to invoke. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' or named alternatives listed, but the post-integration requirement effectively constrains usage.

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