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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully declares 'Read-only' and names the exact return fields (name, url, one-line summary, tags), but says nothing about ranking, pagination beyond the limit param, empty-result behavior, or whether tag/category matching is fuzzy.

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 tight sentences: capability and corpus first, return shape second, safety note last. No filler, though the trailing 'Read-only' is a fragment that slightly breaks the flow.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool searches and what it returns, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and when to prefer the sibling lookup tools.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional meaning about how query, category, or limit interact (e.g. whether category narrows query results or replaces them), so baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource scope (Anclum's catalogue of MCP servers, agent skills, open-source AI projects, non-developer AI tools). This scope implicitly distinguishes it from get_tool and list_categories, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery tool for when the exact tool name is unknown. There is no explicit 'use this instead of get_tool when...' routing or mention of list_categories for browsing by category, which would have made this a 4 or 5.

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