Local marketplace index

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

The annotation already flags destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Writes a file (destructive)'. It adds the specific information that the tool writes a file, which is more concrete than the generic annotation. However, it does not disclose details like whether existing files are overwritten or what happens if out_file is omitted, so it does not fully exploit the opportunity to add behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences that each add distinct value. The first states the action, the second provides context and consumers, the third flags side effects. No filler or repetition of annotations, making it highly efficient.

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 effectively explains the tool's purpose, its place in the marketplace workflow, and its destructive nature. With simple inputs and no output schema, this is mostly sufficient. The missing explanation of out_file is the only notable gap, preventing a perfect score.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It implicitly covers package_dir via 'Scan a local package directory', but completely omits out_file—its purpose, default behavior, or relationship to the writing action. This is a significant gap for a two-parameter tool, leaving the agent to guess the second parameter's role.

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's action: 'Scan a local package directory and write an index of installable tdmcp packages'. It specifies the resource (local package directory) and the output (index). It further differentiates from siblings by naming the consumers (browse_library and install_library_package), making its role in the marketplace workflow explicit.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use it to make a folder of components browsable and installable as a simple local marketplace'. It also explains how the output relates to other tools, which implies when this tool is needed (before browsing/installing). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like generate_library_index or mention when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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