arcat

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It details the hierarchical navigation, exact outputs for different parameter states, and uses examples for each level (e.g., Level 2 = Sections). No contradiction with 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?

The description is remarkably concise yet comprehensive. It starts with a clear purpose, then uses bullet-like explanations for parameter behaviors with examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (hierarchical browsing with 3 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral details. It explains the hierarchy levels, parameter combinations, and even provides concrete CSI code examples, leaving no gaps.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the effect of each parameter in combination, provides realistic examples for 'level' values (1/2/3 with CSI code patterns), and clarifies that omitting 'division' lists all divisions. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 purpose: browsing CSI MasterFormat building product categories. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_manufacturer, search_manufacturers, search_products) by focusing on category hierarchy rather than product or manufacturer data.

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 explicitly explains how parameter combinations affect results: no params lists all divisions, adding division filters by division, division+level filters hierarchy depth, and adding section drills into a specific parent. This gives clear step-by-step guidance for the agent.

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 description adds useful context about the specific data returned (company info, CSI sections, etc.) and the identifier type. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and efficiently conveys all necessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers the return value categories and identifier requirement. No additional context is needed.

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% for the single parameter. The description adds 'by their ARCAT ID' which aligns with the schema's description, providing minimal extra semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 retrieves a detailed profile for a specific manufacturer by ARCAT ID, listing what it returns (company info, CSI sections, content types, product count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_manufacturers and browse_csi_sections by focusing on a single known manufacturer.

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 implicitly conveys usage (when you have an ARCAT ID), but does not explicitly state when to use this vs searching for manufacturers or browsing sections. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 no contradiction. Description adds that results include company details and links to ARCAT profiles, which is useful context beyond the input schema. However, does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Perfectly concise for the complexity.

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, search methods, and return value without needing to explain output format.

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 has 100% coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. Description adds high-level grouping (name, keyword, or CSI section) but no additional detail beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: search for manufacturers by name, keyword, or CSI MasterFormat section, and returns company details with links. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_manufacturer (retrieving a specific one) and browse_csi_sections (browsing sections).

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?

Description implies usage for searching manufacturers but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like get_manufacturer for known IDs. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that results include links to specs, CAD, BIM, and catalog downloads, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and listing search criteria before mentioning return values. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (7 optional parameters, output schema present), the description adequately covers search capabilities and return content. It lacks details on default behavior (e.g., sorting) but remains complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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 value by summarizing the search dimensions (keyword, CSI section, content format) and stating that results include links to specific resources, which is not in the schema. This goes beyond mere parameter listing.

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 searches for building products by keyword, CSI MasterFormat section, or content format, and specifies that it returns product details with links to various resources. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_csi_sections and search_manufacturers.

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 for when to use the tool (searching for building products with specific criteria) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like browse_csi_sections for browsing sections. However, the sibling tool names imply differentiation.

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