get_kb_catalog_alignment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'probes the league's API,' implying external calls, but does not mention authentication requirements, potential latency, rate limits, or that it is read-only. The outputs are described but behavioral context is lacking.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states purpose, second clarifies the mechanism and outputs. It is clear but slightly verbose; could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 complexity (probing and mapping), the description covers the core outputs and purpose. An output schema exists, so return values are sufficiently explained. However, it omits prerequisites like API accessibility and potential errors.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds context that api_url is the endpoint and league_name is optional context, but does not provide additional specifics beyond 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 clearly states the tool checks alignment with ASD canonical kb_catalog schema and lists specific outputs (coverage score, matched/missing schemas, data gaps, complexity estimate). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_data_coverage by focusing on schema alignment rather than general data coverage.

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 for assessing API alignment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_data_coverage or assess_league_readiness). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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