marketplace_repair

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

With no annotations, the description must convey side effects. It says 'heal and repair' and 'sync,' implying state modifications, but it does not disclose whether operations are destructive, irreversible, or require special permissions. The lack of specifics makes the behavior opaque, which is a significant gap for a repair tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that lists the affected components and scope without redundancy. It is concise and information-dense, fitting the tool's purpose.

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 absence of parameters and output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's operation and scope. It names the exact artifacts and mentions 'all clients,' giving a clear picture. Minor gaps remain about the specific repair mechanisms, but they are not required for basic usage.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially high. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 3 applies because there is nothing to add beyond what the empty schema already implies.

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 action (automatically heal and repair) and lists specific targets (SQLite tables, VideoFactory directory structures, permissions, MCP configuration files) along with scope (across all clients). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, audit, or create, making its purpose 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 implies the tool is used to fix or synchronize issues but does not provide explicit conditions for when to use it over alternatives. It lacks directions such as 'use when X is corrupted' or 'do not use if Y.' The scope is stated, but usage context is not fully elaborated.

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