Operation catalog

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the return shape per mode (categories with counts vs. params per operation) and the important scoping constraint that only operations this server will execute are listed. It does not cover item limits or pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the argument-driven modes. The final sentence about executable-only operations earns its place as a meaningful constraint; nothing is redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately for each mode (categories and names; params detail; schema-only fetch). Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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% and each parameter's constraints (enum for detail, maxLength, maxItems 12) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of combinations is largely a restatement of those same descriptions, so it earns the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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 (discover atomic operations for ae_do) and immediately clarifies how behavior changes based on arguments. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the ae_do executor sibling 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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for each mode: no args for the category overview, a category for detailed params, detail: summary for browsing, operations: [...] for targeted schema fetches. It stops short of explicitly saying 'call this before ae_do to learn valid operation names,' so the routing to the sibling is implied rather than stated.

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