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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important non-annotation behavior: the full list is about 100 KB, unfiltered calls return only names and descriptions without schemas, and filtered calls retrieve schemas for named operations.

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 dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then the apply relationship, size warning, filtering behavior, and parameter example. Every sentence adds information needed to call the tool efficiently.

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, but the description explains the conditional return shape: names and descriptions by default, schemas when names are supplied. For a single-parameter, read-only catalog tool, that is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does: names is explained as a comma-separated list with an example, and the description also supplies a concrete JSON argument shape.

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: list domain operations shared with the Kelpo studio, including names, descriptions, and argument JSON schema. It also ties the catalog to the sibling tool kelpo_apply_operations, making its role distinct from catalog tools for actors, outfits, or camera moves.

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 clear usage context: use the listed operations with kelpo_apply_operations, and pass a comma-separated names filter to avoid the very large full list. It does not explicitly compare this catalog against other catalog siblings, but the resource distinction is clear.

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