Generate library index

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so it is already known as a write operation. The description adds valuable context: it reads local vault contents, writes a file, requires a configured TDMCP_VAULT_PATH, and performs no network/TD interaction. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying side effects and prerequisites, though it does not mention the overwrite default behavior (covered by the schema).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, then providing essential context (no TD connection, filters, requirement). Every clause adds useful information without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete: it explains the output note format, the data source (local vault), the thumbnail source, filtering options, and the environment requirement. It does not mention the overwrite default or edge cases, but those are specified in the input schema. The description gives enough context for correct selection and invocation, though not exhaustive.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the output structure (grid of cards with thumbnails and load snippets) and mapping 'kinds' to library categories (recipes, shaders, presets, components, setlists). It also ties thumbnails to the include_thumbnails parameter. This elevates it above baseline, though it does not describe every parameter individually.

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 clearly states the tool 'Write[s] one Markdown contact-sheet note of the whole vault library' with specific content (grid of cards, thumbnails, tags, load snippets). This distinguishes it from siblings like save_recipe_to_vault or browse_vault_library, which have different outputs and purposes. The verb 'Write' and the resource are explicit and unambiguous.

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 says 'No TouchDesigner connection required: it reads the local vault on disk and writes the index note,' which gives clear when-to-use context (when you need an index without a live TD connection). It also mentions filtering by category/query, implying use cases for targeted indexes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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