Get a high-level overview of the entire art catalog: total works, collections, price range, resolutions available, availability stats, and an introduction to Visual Medicine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the return contents (total works, collections, price range, resolutions, availability stats) and an introduction to Visual Medicine, implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention data freshness or any limitations.
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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists data points. Every element adds value, though the long enumeration could be slightly more structured.
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-parameter read-only overview, the description provides a thorough account of expected return data. Since there is no output schema, this description fully compensates by listing all key outputs.
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 zero parameters, so the schema is already fully covered. The description adds value by detailing the output scope, which is a useful complement to the empty 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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'high-level overview of the entire art catalog', enumerating its contents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific artworks, collections, or recommendations.
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 usage for a broad catalog summary, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus searching for specific artworks or browsing collections. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: browsing collections, overview, artwork details, space recommendations, inquiries, and filtered search. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., browse_collections, search_artworks), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for an art catalog server, covering essential operations without being too sparse or excessive.
The tools cover browsing, searching, detailed viewing, recommendations, and purchasing inquiries, leaving no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a curator catalog.
