Create code tour card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers meaningful context: it specifies the interactive card format, one tab per file, copy buttons, and the ordering of README, manifest, and src. It stops short of mentioning automatic splitting for large projects or potential side effects, but the 'render' verb implies non-destructive behavior, and the included details go well beyond a minimal statement.

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 description is exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide actionable input guidance. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the tool's core intent and the two main invocation paths, but it omits the part-number mechanism for large projects, which is critical for multi-call workflows. The schema documents this in the 'part' parameter, but the description's claim of 'one-call plug-n-play' could mislead an agent into thinking no follow-up calls are ever needed. Given the tool's complexity (10 params), this is a notable gap.

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 description coverage is 70%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two primary input modes (archivePath vs. files), and it clarifies that the archive should be generated earlier in the conversation. However, it does not add meaning for parameters like maxTabs, subtitle, or part, which are either self-explanatory or already described in the 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 action: 'Render a project's source as an interactive card with one tab per file', clearly identifying both the resource (source code) and the output format. It further distinguishes itself from sibling card tools by mentioning code copy buttons and the README/manifest/src ordering, making it unmistakably a code-tour tool.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by offering two concrete invocation modes: passing a previously generated zip archive ('one-call plug-n-play') or passing files explicitly. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the context is strong enough for an agent to know how to proceed.

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