catalog_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds the scope of search (by name/action/description) and the optional 'load matches' behavior, which is useful context beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions found.

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 of about 12 words. It front-loads the action 'Search' and provides immediate clarity without 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 simple search tool with an output schema and thorough annotations, the description covers the core purpose and key parameters. The only gap is the 'limit' parameter, which is minor given that output schema and annotations already provide safety and behavioral context. Overall, sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' searches by name/action/description and 'load' optionally loads matches, but it does not mention the 'limit' parameter or clarify what 'load' entails in terms of the matches' format. The description partially fills the gap but is incomplete for all three parameters.

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's function: searching atomic tools by name/action/description, with an optional load of matches. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are about project management, version control, and resource reads rather than catalog 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?

The description implies usage as the go-to search tool for discovering atomic tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools make it clear this is the only search-oriented tool. No exclusions are given, but the context of the tool set makes the intended use fairly obvious.

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