query_knowledge_catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state 'no raw source body or writes,' effectively declaring a read-only, metadata-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination behavior through limit, or any rate/auth considerations. The description adds some safety context but is thin on behavioral detail.

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?

Single concise sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place. This is a model of concise phrasing even though it sacrifices explanatory depth.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. The agent must understand three required parameters (query, chat_id, scope_id) plus limit with no guidance on semantics, scope constraints, or return behavior. 'One exact saved scope' implies scoping but doesn't explain how scope_id relates to list_scopes or what query targets.

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 for all 4 parameters. It mentions none of the parameters by name or role. 'compact cited catalog metadata' hints at output shape but says nothing about what query, chat_id, scope_id, or limit mean or how they interact. Agent must infer parameter semantics entirely from the schema.

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+resource: 'Read compact cited catalog metadata' with an explicit scope qualifier ('in one exact saved scope'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'no raw source body or writes' and the 'cited catalog metadata' framing differentiates it from search_messages or expand_cited_sources. It's specific but could be marginally clearer about what 'catalog' refers to in context.

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 implies usage context ('catalog metadata', 'one exact saved scope') and implicitly excludes alternatives via 'no raw source body or writes'. However, it doesn't name sibling tools or give explicit when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance. Sibling relationships with expand_cited_sources and search_messages are relevant but unaddressed.

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