apidepr_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this tool mutates state, whether it overwrites an existing catalog, whether it requires prior scan results, or what the output/return value looks like. 'Build' implies creation, but the side effects are unclear.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could benefit from a bit more specificity.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the catalog contains, whether the tool is safe/read-only, how it relates to apidepr_scan or apidepr_status, or what a successful invocation returns. More behavioral and usage context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'notes' parameter as 'Deprecation notes'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond that, only implying that the notes are the source for the catalog. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Build') and a resource ('deprecation catalog') with a source ('from notes'), so it conveys the basic action. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like apidepr_status or apidepr_scan, and 'catalog' is somewhat vague about what the output actually is.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus apidepr_status or apidepr_scan. The description implies it is for building a catalog from notes, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or alternative routing.

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