websex_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait — that an unfiltered call returns only counts rather than the catalog — which is valuable. However it says nothing about the effect of missing_only, registered_only, or include_contracts, nor about permissions or result size limits.

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 sentences, zero filler. The capability statement is front-loaded and the include_all caution follows immediately; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, leaving missing_only, registered_only, and include_contracts entirely unexplained is a real gap an agent must guess around.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for three inputs — name is exact-match on the `websex_*` pattern, query is substring, category is a facet — plus the semantics of include_all. The three remaining booleans are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the coverage gap only partly filled.

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 and resource ('Search every WebSex executable and native MCP tool') and enumerates the three lookup modes (exact name, substring query, category). Against ~150 sibling execution tools, this is clearly the discovery/meta tool, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for the include_all flag ('only when the complete catalog is genuinely required') and warns that an unfiltered call returns only counts. It stops short of naming alternatives such as websex_recommend_tools or websex_exploit_search, so routing between discovery tools is left to inference.

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