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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that without overwrite an existing folder is kept, that overwrite replaces it after host confirmation, and that Pro names require PLY_LICENSE_KEY. Minor gap: the reference to `--yes` is a CLI flag with no parameter equivalent, which can puzzle an agent reading 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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then alternatives, mutation semantics, and auth in a compact block. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; the `ply-ui-cli add --yes` parenthetical is the only slightly noisy element.

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 destructive install tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, this description covers prerequisites, alternatives, mutation risk, auth, and even points at structuredContent fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by explaining the overwrite/confirm interaction and the licenseKey-vs-env preference. It reinforces rather than re-states the schema, though it does not explain cwd or name alias resolution beyond what the schema already says.

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 (install) and resource (named registry components) plus the precondition that ply-ui.json must already exist. It names init_project and update_components as contrast points, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: init_project creates ply-ui.json, update_components refreshes tracked copies, and this tool installs new ones. It also explains when overwrite applies and that hosts confirm before replacing an existing folder.

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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it with 'Writes nothing' and clarifies the handoff boundary to update_components. It adds little about result shape beyond naming drifted paths and statuses, which is partly carried by the output schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, its side-effect-free nature, and how it differs from two siblings. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces — the read-only guarantee and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so cwd and names are already fully documented, including the omit-or-empty behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the correct baseline 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 object — comparing tracked Ply component files against the registry — plus the result shape (drifted paths and statuses). It explicitly distinguishes itself from update_components and doctor, so an agent can pick it without inspecting schemas.

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 the positive case (diff tracked files against the registry) and two explicit alternatives with the condition that selects them: update_components for applying changes, doctor for project setup rather than file contents. Nothing is left to inference.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: @source issues surface as warnings rather than failures, no files are written, and isError propagates from non-zero CLI exit. That exit-code behavior is a useful disclosure beyond the annotation set.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the checklist of what is verified, followed by severity semantics and the sibling disambiguation. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be enumerated, yet the description still covers the one behavioral detail an agent needs (isError on non-zero exit). Combined with the read-only annotations and full schema coverage, nothing required to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single cwd parameter (project root, defaults to PLY_CWD) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check') and a precise resource ('Ply project setup'), then enumerates exactly what is inspected: ply-ui.json, Angular/CDK, Tailwind v4 @source, ply-ui.css, icon sprites. An agent can immediately tell this is a diagnostic/verification tool distinct from init_project or update_components.

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 routes file-drift checking to the sibling diff_components and states it 'does not install or modify files,' which clarifies the boundary with init_project/add_components. It lacks an explicit 'use after X' or 'run before Y' trigger, so it stops just short of the 5 threshold.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: free-tier source is gated behind includeSource=true, Pro source is never streamed via MCP, and the tool does not install anything but returns an installCommand. Those are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the alternative-tool routing and the source-tier caveats. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the telegraphic phrasing ('Free source only when includeSource=true') costs a bit of 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it lists the metadata fields returned and specifically calls out installCommand. Combined with the source-tier and no-install caveats, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% and the schema already spells out both parameters, including that Pro source is never returned via MCP in V1. The description's note about includeSource largely restates that, so it adds little semantic value beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get registry metadata for one known component') and immediately enumerates what that metadata contains (deps, category, file list). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling search_components by the condition of name certainty, so an agent can pick between the two 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?

Names the alternative tool explicitly ('Use search_components when the name is uncertain') and gives the selecting condition. It also implicitly scopes usage to known names via 'one known component', leaving no ambiguity about the lookup-vs-search split.

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 flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real value by scoping the destruction to one flag (refreshEditorKit overwrites an existing editor kit) and asserting existing project files are preserved, plus the non-interactive guarantee. It stops short of describing failure behavior or what the call returns, so not a 5.

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 action and its file list are front-loaded, followed by the preservation rule, the single exception, and the routing to siblings. Dense but every clause carries a distinct constraint; nothing is redundant.

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 zero-required-param, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers scope, preservation, the sole destructive path, and interactivity. The remaining gap is outcome reporting (what success looks like, behavior on partial failure), which matters for a non-idempotent writer.

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 both parameter descriptions already cover the cwd default and the `--refresh-editor-kit` mapping. The description reinforces refreshEditorKit's semantics ("the only replacement: it overwrites an editor kit that is already there") but adds little syntax or format detail beyond 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (create missing Ply setup files, via `ply-ui-cli init --yes`) and enumerates exactly which artifacts are produced (ply-ui.json, ply-ui.css, icon sprites, @source, design skill dirs). It also explicitly demarcates itself from siblings by naming add_components and update_components as later steps.

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?

States the precondition clearly ("only when those files are absent", "once ply-ui.json exists" for add_components), names the alternatives and the one exception path (refreshEditorKit is the only replacement), and closes with "Always non-interactive." An agent knows both when to call it and when to call something else.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral boundaries beyond the annotations: results are sorted by name, matching is not fuzzy, and installation must be done with the external CLI command.

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 front-loaded with the core action and filtering behavior, then uses short sentences to route the agent to alternatives and clarify the install boundary. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 simple three-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers selection, filtering, sorting, and the non-install boundary well. It does not describe the exact shape of returned component records, which is a minor gap because no output schema exists.

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 100%, and the schema fully documents q, tier, and category including enums and defaults. The description mentions the filter dimensions but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it lists Ply registry components, with filters and name sorting. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from search_components and get_component, so an agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It states when to use this tool versus alternatives: search_components for uncertain or fuzzy names, get_component for one known component, and the CLI add command for copying into a project. It also explicitly says this tool does not install.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior; the description adds the valuable negative guarantee "Does not install" and points to the correct mechanism for the mutating step (npx ply-ui-cli add or add_components). It doesn't say how ranking or tie-breaking works or whether results are paginated, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: purpose and match mode first, sibling differentiation second, side-effect and follow-up action last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4-param search tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, nothing an agent needs to choose and invoke it correctly is missing; result ordering is implied by "rank" and no output schema exists to explain.

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 100%, including the query param's natural-language/substring semantics and the limit range, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only echoes the query example ("dialog modal") and says nothing about tier or category beyond what the enum descriptions provide, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Rank Ply registry components") plus the matching mode (fuzzy or token match), and explicitly contrasts itself with list_components and get_component by name.

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 the trigger condition ("when the name is uncertain"), an example query, explicit exclusions ("Not a category browse"), and names both alternative tools with their respective use cases. Also covers the downstream action: instruct the user to run the CLI add command.

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?

Goes well past the destructiveHint=true annotation by explaining exactly what gets replaced (untouched files take upstream), what stays (conflicts remain local, non-zero exit unless force or merge), what is skipped (local-only edits unless overwriteLocal), and that the host confirms before destructive flags fire. This is substantial behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations.

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-loads the core action, then layers conditions in short clauses; every sentence carries information. It is telegraphic to the point of being terse, which slightly raises parsing effort for a first-time reader.

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 destructive, multi-flag mutation tool this covers the essentials: precedence rules, exit behavior, skip rules, confirmation requirements, and the shape of structuredContent.files. A separate output schema exists, and the description's one-line note about per-file results is enough to orient the agent.

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 still adds value by describing flag precedence (force wins over merge) and the interactive confirmation behavior around force and overwriteLocal. It stops short of restating names/cwd semantics, but those are already well documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource — apply upstream changes to tracked Ply component copies — and ties it to the underlying CLI command, so there is no ambiguity about what it does. It also contrasts itself with the read-only sibling in the same breath.

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 names diff_components as the non-writing alternative that reports the same drift, which lets an agent route between 'inspect' and 'apply' without reading either schema. The force/merge/overwriteLocal clauses further pin down when each mode is appropriate.

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