wire_catalog

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing read-only operations ('Browse', 'list'). It adds value by detailing the returned content: action lists, schemas, types, auth modes, credit costs, and login fields. No contradictions; it enriches the read-only annotation with specifics about what the agent will receive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then detailing the behavior with a slug and the use case. It's dense but not bloated; every sentence contributes. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to invoke it (with and without slug), and how it fits with sibling tools. Since an output schema exists (as per context), return details are already structured. No critical gaps remain for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'slug' with the same semantics (omit to list all). The description repeats the examples but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't fail to compensate because nothing is missing.

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 purpose: browse the Wire catalog, listing all sites with no args, or a specific site's actions with a slug. It uses specific verbs like 'Browse' and 'list' and distinguishes itself from execution tools by explicitly noting it's used 'before running' wire_read_action or wire_write_action.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use it: to inspect a site's capabilities before executing actions. It names the alternative tools (wire_read_action, wire_write_action) and frames the catalog as a precursor. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions, but the context is clear that this is for discovery, not execution.

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