List recognized CRUMB component schemas

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds context like 'version-pinned' and 'machine-readable evidence vocabulary,' which gives useful extra detail about the response. However, it does not describe pagination, output size limits, or any potential error conditions, though with an output schema present, this is less critical.

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, dense sentence that packs all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action ('Returns') and lists the content items in a structured, comma-separated manner. Every phrase contributes value, making it both concise and complete.

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 an output schema present, return values are already defined, so the description need not detail them. The tool is read-only, has one optional parameter, and the description covers its primary behavior and filtering ability. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance, but that is scored separately. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and call 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?

The schema only defines toolId as an integer with min/max. The description says 'Optionally filter by toolId,' which adds meaning that this parameter filters the returned catalog. Yet it does not clarify what a toolId represents (e.g., which catalog IDs are valid, whether it aligns with component schema IDs) or how filtering behaves (exact match, partial). Given 0% schema description coverage, a bit more detail would be helpful.

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 starts with 'Returns' and clearly specifies the resource: 'version-pinned CRUMB tool-ID catalog, payload signatures, typed parameters, terminal labels, confidence values, and their machine-readable evidence vocabulary.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like crumb_get_component (which likely fetches a single component) and crumb_ic_reference (which likely references datasheets). The optional filter by toolId further clarifies 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 provides no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It only mentions 'Optionally filter by toolId,' which is a parameter usage detail, not a high-level usage guideline. Without context on when to choose this catalog over related tools (e.g., crumb_get_component), an agent lacks direction.

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