tool_catalog
Describe this product domain, tools, and input expectations.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
leakledger-ota-recovery
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for explaining behavior, side effects, security, and return values. It discloses none of these. The description does not even clearly indicate whether the call is read-only or state-changing, making it behaviorally opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is vastly under-specified. It does not front-load a clear action or resource; instead, it reads as a meta-prompt. This is under-specification, not welcome conciseness, because the sentence's meaning is ambiguous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though the tool has no parameters and there is an output schema present, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what the tool returns, why an agent should invoke it, or how it relates to other tools. The minimal complexity is offset by the complete lack of actionable context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'input expectations' vaguely, but since the schema has no properties, there is no additional parameter information needed or supplied. The trivial schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Describe this product domain, tools, and input expectations.' is phrased as an imperative/instruction rather than a clear statement of tool behavior. It does not explicitly say what the tool does (e.g., 'lists', 'returns', 'provides'), and it offers no distinction from the sibling tool 'evaluate_exception'. It is more than a tautology but remains vague about core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Describe this product domain, tools, and input expectations' implies it could be used to understand the domain/tools, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are given. This qualifies as implied usage only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.