Anclum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the safety profile ('Read-only') plus the exact shape of the returned record. It omits error behavior for an unknown key and any auth/rate-limit context, but the read-only and return-content disclosures are substantive.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the lookup semantics come first and the return/safety information follows. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the single parameter is fully specified, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. The only gap is what happens when the key does not resolve.

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 already 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema's 'The entry key/slug' by defining the key as the slug used in its Anclum URL, clarifying the expected format.

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 (get) and resource (one catalogue entry) with a clear scope qualifier ('one' vs. list/search siblings). An agent can distinguish this from list_categories and search_tools without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'by its key' implies the precondition that the caller already has a key, and the sibling names imply this is the lookup path rather than the discovery path. However, no alternative is named explicitly (e.g., 'use search_tools first if you don't have a key') and no when-not conditions are given.

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 the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: "Read-only." It also describes the shape of what comes back (categories with counts, plus field tags). No permissions, caching, or size characteristics are mentioned, but for a zero-parameter read it is largely sufficient.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then the return content, then the downstream use and the read-only trait. Nothing is padded.

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 parameterless read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and the follow-up call pattern. A hint at the size or ordering of the returned categories would close the remaining gap.

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 takes no parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning and appropriately doesn't try.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("List the catalogue's taxonomies") and enumerates the two taxonomy kinds with an example tag value, so the intent is unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly draw the line against get_tool, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

"Useful for then calling search_tools with a category" states a concrete downstream use, effectively prescribing when to reach for this tool over search_tools. No exclusion conditions or prerequisites are given, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only nature and the returned fields (name, url, summary, tags), which are key behavioral traits for a search tool. It does not mention rate limits or result ordering, but the safety profile and output shape are clearly stated.

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 tightly written sentences. The first front-loads scope and purpose, the second covers return fields and read-only status without any filler.

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 search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, return values, and read-only status sufficiently. The main gap is usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but the core functionality is complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with examples and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource (Anclum's catalogue of MCP servers, agent skills, projects, and AI tools). The purpose is clear and distinguishable from siblings by its search nature, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_tool or list_categories.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_tool, list_categories, or other search tools. The description only defines what the tool does, not the conditions or alternatives for its use.

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