List Who Catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool returns a complete inventory table including archive status and HA platform. This is a read-only operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state that; however, the act of 'returning' implies no mutation. The behavior is clear enough for a simple listing tool, so a 4 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and output. There is no fluff, and every word adds value. It is perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers what the tool does. It specifies the content of the return (complete inventory, archive status, HA platform), which is all an agent needs to decide and invoke it correctly. No missing information is apparent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the schema shows. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is given. The description doesn't add param details (not needed), and the schema is empty, so no additional semantics are required.

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 verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('complete inventory table of all 20+ OpenWebNet WHO families'). It also details what is included ('archive status and HA platform'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_who_spec that likely focus on single families. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a complete inventory of WHO families is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_who_spec, search_documentation) makes the use case obvious. It provides clear context without formal exclusion guidance, fitting a score of 4.

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