get_tileset_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' explicitly indicates a non-destructive operation, and the description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: absence from the catalog signifies unreviewed content, not an error. This adds valuable context beyond a simple getter description.

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 filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds essential semantic context about absence. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents (catalog, manifest, validation summary) and the interpretation of missing entries. It doesn't describe error responses or output structure, but that's beyond what's expected given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with tilesetId already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the schema provides the type and name, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Read the structured semantic catalog' – a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling write/validation tools like save_tileset_catalog and validate_tileset_catalog by focusing on retrieval of the catalog plus derived artifacts.

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 'Absence from the catalog means unreviewed, not safe to infer' sentence provides a clear exclusion criterion for interpreting results. This implies the tool is for reading existing reviewed catalogs, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like verify_tileset or save_tileset_catalog.

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