pob_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and that the catalog can be read prior to build creation, which is genuinely beyond the annotations. It does not describe rate limits, result size, or what a catalog entry contains.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The catalog content comes first and the operational notes second, which is the right ordering for a lookup tool.

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 read-only annotations and no output schema, the description should say something about the shape of returned entries or how to page through results. It flags pagination but leaves the return payload and the 'query' filtering behavior undefined, which leaves an agent guessing on a 4-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It lists categories matching the 'kind' enum but omits the 'bases' value entirely and never explains 'query', 'limit', or 'offset' beyond the single word 'pagination'.

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 names a concrete resource (the source Lua catalog) and enumerates what it holds: exact IDs of gems, classes, nodes, configs, and slots. That tells an agent precisely what lookup data is available. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like pob_node_tooltip or pob_check_build beyond the loose phrase 'available before creating a build'.

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 phrase 'available before creating a build' implies this is a prerequisite lookup step ahead of pob_create_build, which is useful sequencing guidance. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor a direct pointer to an alternative tool for the same data.

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