homestead_catalog

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'List' and describes the output contents ('packs, shelves, and every source with its publisher, licence and download size'), which tells the agent what to expect. It does not mention side effects, performance, or auth, but for a catalog listing that is minimal risk. The description is transparent enough.

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 first sentence states the action and output detail, the second gives a direct follow-up action. Key information is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. This is an exemplar of concise, well-structured tool documentation.

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 no-argument, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description is complete. It explains what data will be returned (installable items with publisher, licence, download size) and why/when to call it. An agent has enough to decide to invoke it and to interpret the result without external documentation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the rubric. The description adds no parameter-level semantics because there are none to describe. It does signal the output granularity, which indirectly helps the agent understand what it will receive without any required arguments.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('what can be installed'), enumerating the exact contents (packs, shelves, sources with publisher, licence, download size). It also anchors itself against a sibling ('Call this before homestead_install'), which prevents confusion with the install workflow. This gives an agent an unambiguous picture of the tool's scope.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool: 'Call this before homestead_install to choose shelves.' That provides a clear temporal condition and a related sibling. It does not enumerate other alternatives (e.g., when to use homestead_search or homestead_categories instead), so it stops short of a full when-not matrix, but the core usage context is unambiguous.

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