watchface_disp_catalog

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return fields (symbol, description, hints), filter parameters, defaults (limit default 80), and no side effects. Could mention if read-only implicitly, but behavior is clear for a catalog retrieval.

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, first sentence upfront states purpose and key details, second sentence provides usage context. No redundant information; every word contributes value.

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?

Description is fairly complete for a catalog retrieval tool: states entry count, fields, and usage with sibling tool. No output schema, but description implies structure. Slight gap in not explicitly stating return format (array of objects) but overall adequate.

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%, each parameter already has a description. The description adds little beyond schema: it references hints (image/text) which maps to the 'expects' enum, but does not add new semantic meaning. 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 tool returns the full disp id catalog (194 entries) firmware understands, specifies entry contents (English symbol, Chinese description, heuristic hints), and explicitly distinguishes its use from sibling tool watchface_font_catalog by explaining the relationship between disp and font/image requirements.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use it together with watchface_font_catalog' and explains when each type applies ('text-leaning disps need a font id; raster-leaning disps need an image_addr asset'). This provides clear context for when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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