list_fb_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 reveals that the tool is a read-only listing operation and highlights a unique completeness caveat, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be open), performance implications, or possible errors. It adds some behavioral context but stops short of a full disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core action and keeps the purpose statement immediate. The explanatory note about the vendor library is valuable context and earns its place. The Args section is clearly separated, making the structure scannable, though the middle paragraph is slightly verbose for an agent.

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 and only two simple parameters, the description covers the main usage context well. It explains why this tool is the right choice for project-level block listing and contrasts it with the vendor library. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with siblings like get_fb_signature or list_library_blocks, but the given note is sufficient for correct selection.

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 compensate, and it does. It defines 'path' as 'Project file or directory' and 'search' as a 'Case-insensitive substring filter on the block name,' adding practical meaning beyond the bare string types in the schema. Format details are left to the output schema, but the essential semantics are provided.

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 every function block the project uses, with the parameters it passes.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_library_blocks by framing this as the project's actual 'practical coding vocabulary' and stating the vendor library is not exported, making this the only complete view for a project.

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 gives clear context: use it to see the blocks actually available in a project and their formal parameter names, because the vendor library is not exported as type definitions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like list_library_blocks or search_library, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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