baseframelabs-catalogue

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

No annotations provided, so description must compensate. It mentions tools are 'ranked' but doesn't explain ranking criteria or return format. Lacks detail on behavioral traits like ordering or output structure.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. No wasted words, 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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context to use it as the first step. Could elaborate on return format but not essential given its role.

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% with a clear parameter description ('What the user is trying to do'). Description adds 'plain-language goal, ranked' but doesn't significantly enhance semantic understanding 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'Baseframe Labs developer tools', and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'plain-language goal' ranking, which none of the sibling tools do.

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 advises 'Use this first when the user describes a problem' with an example, providing strong directional guidance. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, but the directive is clear.

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?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only states purpose; no information about side effects (assumed none), authentication needs, or return format beyond the summary. For a read operation, more context on what constitutes 'full guide' would help.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words.

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 1-parameter read tool without output schema, the description sufficiently tells what the tool returns (overview, features, setup, usage). No missing critical details.

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 covers 100% of parameters with description of 'slug' as product slug. Description adds that slug identifies a product to retrieve its guide, but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 due to high coverage.

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 the action (get), resource (full agent-readable guide for one product), and method (by slug). It distinguishes from siblings like list_products (all products) and find_tools (search).

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?

Implied when you need a guide for a specific product, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives mentioned. Given tool simplicity, minimally adequate.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states what is returned (install command and links) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., missing slug). Behavioral traits are minimally communicated.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format. It mentions 'install command and links' but lacks details (e.g., is the command a code snippet? Are links URLs?). For a simple tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 parameters are already documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'by slug'. The 'client' parameter is not elaborated in the description, though schema provides examples. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves install commands and links for a single product by slug. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('install command and links'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_products' (lists all products) and 'get_docs' (gets documentation).

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 use when you have a product slug, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_products' (to find slugs) or 'find_tools' (to search for tools). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose behavior if no MCP server exists, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is adequate but lacks detail for a comprehensive safety profile.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, efficiently conveying 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 lack of output schema, the description does not detail the return format, which could be helpful. However, for a config retrieval tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its function and when to use it.

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%; both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('MCP client config'), and the purpose ('to wire a product's own MCP server into the user's coding agent, if it ships one'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_install' or 'get_docs'.

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 context (when you need MCP config for a product's server) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives. Given the sibling list, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'List' but doesn't explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation or disclose side effects. However, for a simple listing, the term 'List' strongly implies safety, so it is adequate but not detailed.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently tells the agent what the tool does and what to expect in terms of output fields (slugs, categories, install commands). No additional information 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema covers everything vacuously. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 a clear verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'Baseframe Labs catalogue' with explicit fields (slugs, categories, install commands). It is distinct from sibling tools like find_tools or get_docs, which focus on other aspects.

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 clearly states the tool lists the full catalogue, implying use when the agent needs to retrieve product information. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the context of sibling tools makes the usage domain apparent.

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