Scaffold a teaching companion pack from a COMP

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it discloses exact file writes, the read-only nature of bridge calls (no mutation of TD), and the requirement of environment variables and bridge connection. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true annotations, providing no contradictions.

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 four sentences, densely packed with useful information: purpose, outputs, file layout, constraints, and non-recipe status. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence contributes value, and the most critical details are front-loaded.

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 tool with eight parameters and multiple output artifacts, the description covers inputs, outputs, exact file paths, environmental requirements, and the read-only nature of its underlying calls. No output schema exists, but the description's explicit list of files and the 'for reference only' caveat fully compensate, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 75% (6/8 parameters), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning for lesson_count ('N-step'), folder ('vault subfolder'), and name ('slug'), but does not clarify preview_width or preview_height, which are undocumented in the schema. This is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 verb ('Build') and resource ('teaching/selling companion for a network'), and enumerates concrete outputs (tutorial.md, topology.json, network_snapshot.json, previews/*.png). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it is not a RecipeSchema-compatible installable recipe, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 context on when to use: to scaffold a tutorial pack via read-only bridge calls, and it notes prerequisites (TDMCP_VAULT_PATH, running bridge). It also gives an when-not by clarifying the snapshot is for reference only and not an installable recipe, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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