analysis_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the catalog's contents, which is useful but not a major behavioral disclosure (e.g., no side effects, no rate limits). It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides a usage hint. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage. It doesn't explain return formatting, but the output schema handles that. Minor gap: no explicit mention of requiring an active analysis session, but that is implied.

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. It only mentions 'analysis session' generally, which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not clarify where to obtain the session ID or its format, leaving the agent to infer.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('capability catalog of an analysis session'), and lists concrete contents (taps, follow protocols, statistics, columns, encapsulation types). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analysis_summary or analysis_status.

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 states a clear use case: 'Use this to discover what analysis operations are available.' This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when needing capability discovery.

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