get_control_catalog

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 mentions the output is 'compact JSON' and returned 'in ONE call', hinting at efficiency. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only nature, caching, latency, or side effects. The description adequately describes the return structure but could add more behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line summary, followed by output format details and parameter documentation in a bullet-like style. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values but still summarizes the output shape. For a catalog tool with two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output comprehensively, leaving no gaps.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'types' as an optional filter list of control types/node-ids, and 'include_theme' as including per-control theme override fields. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal type and default information.

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 a machine-readable schema for every placeable control in one call, specifies the output format (compact JSON keyed by control type), and distinguishes from siblings like get_control_doc. The verb 'returns' and resource 'control catalog' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises to prefer this over reading individual control docs when authoring, providing a clear use case. It implies not to use it for detailed individual control documentation, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the sibling list. Still, the guidance is clear and context-rich.

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