node_catalog

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

Annotations already mark this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, local read; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the hard prerequisite (the Stochastly desktop app must be installed, open, and running with an Atelier or Portfolio licence) and the environment where it will fail. It also explains the in-memory vs engine-reload behavior tied to the force flag.

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 return-value explanation is front-loaded and dense, and the licence prerequisite is stated early. There is mild redundancy between the opening installation instructions and the closing 'Needs Stochastly open with an Atelier or Portfolio licence' sentence, but the size is justified by the non-obvious environment requirement.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: it explains the family grouping, the node categories, the per-node parameter schema, and the exportable flag. The environment prerequisite and downstream usage are also covered, leaving only minor detail unstated.

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%, and the single force parameter is fully explained in the schema itself (engine reload after an update). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (return the graph editor's node catalogue) and describes the return content precisely: grouped by family, covering strategy/filter/gate/cost/reading nodes with parameter schema and an exportable flag. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming compose_graph and backtest_graph as its dependents.

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?

Gives clear context: it is the only source of valid node keys and should be called before writing a plan, which implies calling it ahead of compose_graph and backtest_graph. No explicit when-not-to-use case is stated, so it falls just short of the top band.

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