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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that validation runs before any write, that a failed check writes nothing and returns an error listing what to fix, the exact files produced (<destDir>/<name>.h5p plus optional <name>.preview.html), escaping behavior for plain text versus allowed HTML tags, and the compatibility limit that the package only plays on a site with that type installed at that version. That is the kind of consequence-level detail the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with what is built and from what, then validation, then outputs. It is a dense single block and could be split for scanability, but each sentence carries distinct information about behavior rather than restating the schema.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs for an eight-parameter, nested-content, file-writing tool: input provenance, validation outcomes, exact output locations, language handling, overwrite safety, and post-build compatibility. An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond it by explaining that name defaults from title, that preview writes the HTML page unless false (matching the schema default), and that language drives the buttons and messages inside the package. It does not elaborate on overwrite's failure modes beyond the confirmation requirement.

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?

A precise verb plus resource plus scope: builds a content-only .h5p package with h5p.json and content/content.json and no libraries, sourced from list_h5p_types. It is unmistakable against read_h5p, list_h5p_types and server_info, and even names the sibling that supplies the input shape.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (content must be written for one of list_h5p_types' types and in the shape its fields give) and a scope boundary (uploading is another tool's job; confirm with the person before overwriting). It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for upload or preview review, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with a safe read. Beyond that it discloses meaningful scope limits: buttons/messages are omitted because build_h5p localizes them, and media isn't supported yet. It does not discuss caching or response size, which is a minor gap given an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the list purpose, then the detail mode, then exclusions and the workflow rule — good ordering with no filler sentences. The middle sentence is long and packs several concepts together, which costs a little readability.

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?

Covers both invocation modes, the return contents of each, the types that contain parts, exclusions, and the ordering relationship with build_h5p. With an output schema also present, nothing needed to select or call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented there, but the description adds real meaning: 'type' returns the field shape build_h5p expects for that type, including kind, required, limits, options and allowed HTML tags. This tells the agent what the parameter actually unlocks rather than just restating its type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the H5P content types this server builds packages for') and immediately clarifies the second mode when 'type' is passed. An agent can distinguish this from build_h5p/read_h5p without opening any schema.

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 says when to pass 'type' vs omit it, and gives the workflow rule: 'Read the fields of each type before writing its content, and of each part you put inside another.' It also names exclusions (buttons/messages, media) so the agent knows what it won't find.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the closing 'Only reads' largely restates that. The description earns credit elsewhere: it discloses that bundled-library packages are read for content only while 'libraries' merely lists them, and that 'supported' reports whether build_h5p can build that type at that version — behavior no annotation or schema conveys.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and near every clause carries information (round-trip shape, libraries handling, supported flag). The middle sentences are run-on with only light connective punctuation, which slows parsing slightly but wastes no words.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description goes beyond necessity: it explains the round-trip contract with build_h5p, the meaning of 'supported', and how libraries are handled. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'The .h5p file (absolute path)'. The description adds the context that the path must be a local package, but supplies no format details beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read what a local .h5p package holds') and enumerates the returned facets: type, version, title, language, content. It explicitly positions itself opposite build_h5p ('the same shape build_h5p takes') and against list_h5p_types, so an agent can pick correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: reviewing a package, or changing it and rebuilding with build_h5p, which names the sibling to use for the write path. It lacks an explicit exclusion ('do not use for remote URLs' or 'not for listing available types'), so it is clear but not fully bounded.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful disclosure — "Contains no secrets" — signaling the output is safe to surface, plus the conditional behavior of reporting whether separate programs are installed.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary payload (name, version, data folder) and ending with the conditional check. The clause about separately-installed programs is slightly wordy but earns its place by describing a non-obvious behavior.

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 no-param, read-only tool with an output schema documenting the return shape and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, the conditional program check, and the reassurance that no secrets are exposed.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The enumerated output fields are not parameters and belong to the output 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?

States a specific verb ("Show") and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: server name, version, data folder, plus whether separately-installed programs are present. An agent knows precisely what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named (there are no siblings). For a zero-parameter informational tool the intended use is implied and obvious, so this is adequate but not enriched.

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