pr_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the two distinct response shapes (categories with counts vs. full operation parameters) and the node_id addressing convention. It doesn't state read-only/safety explicitly, but 'List' plus the response description makes it unambiguous.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core purpose and the mode-dependent output front-loaded. No 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?

For a single-optional-parameter discovery tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage timing, both return shapes, and the node_id convention for follow-up calls. Only minor gaps (e.g., output format) remain.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum of categories is fully documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining what happens with and without the category argument, which is semantics the schema cannot express.

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 and resource ('List Premiere Pro operations available through pr_do') and clarifies the relationship to the sibling pr_do. It further distinguishes the two listing modes, so an agent can tell exactly what the call returns.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call it before using an operation not yet used in the session, and names pr_do as the executor, giving clear when-to-use context. It stops short of stating when not to call it, but the guidance is actionable.

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