start_here

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs remotely in the Kuudo deployment, not in the current environment, and that it returns workflow documentation rather than performing generation. 'Catalog entry' itself implies a read-only informational operation, though it does not explicitly state there are no side effects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: 'Catalog entry' and 'Call this FIRST' appear at the beginning. The bullet list organizes the documentation topics efficiently. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence contributes context.

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?

Given the empty schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, when to call it, where it runs, and what topics the returned documentation covers. It does not specify the output format, but for a zero-parameter documentation entry point this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds context by explaining that the tool accepts no input and simply returns documentation, which aligns with the empty schema. No parameter descriptions are needed.

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 states a specific purpose: it is a catalog entry that returns workflow documentation for using the image and video generation server. The phrase 'Call this FIRST' clearly marks it as an entry-point tool, which distinguishes it from the generation and upload siblings.

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 says to call this tool FIRST, providing clear timing guidance. It also notes that it runs in the Kuudo deployment rather than here, which is a useful environment caveat. It does not name specific alternatives or describe when not to use it, but for an overview/documentation tool this is sufficient.

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