prd_get_api_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output (endpoint paths, methods, descriptions) but does not mention safety traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or error behavior. The verb 'Get' hints at read-only, but explicit disclosure is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality: it retrieves API catalog details for a service. The single parameter is well-documented in the schema. It could mention pagination or error handling, but the core behavior is clear.

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 input schema already provides a clear description of the single parameter 'service' with examples. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'API endpoint details' for a specific service or category. It distinguishes from sibling tools like prd_list_services or prd_check_api_refs by specifying that it returns endpoint paths, methods, and descriptions from the OpenAPI catalog.

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 when needing API endpoint details for a specific service, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., prd_check_api_refs, prd_list_services) but are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer context.

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