fpl_strategy_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It says 'Return', which indicates a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or require any authentication. Given that it is a catalog tool with no parameters, the ambiguity is low, but the description does not go beyond the bare action to disclose any edge cases or data semantics. It is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Return all available') and enumerates the catalog contents. It is concise and avoids fluff, though the list of items makes the sentence a bit long. Overall it is well-structured for the task.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all it needs: it enumerates the types of information returned (strategy profiles, action kinds, configs, signal components, tunable fields). Nothing an agent would need to call it successfully is missing, though it could optionally mention whether the output is a schema or an array, but that is likely self-evident. It is complete enough.

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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 params. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on the output content, which is the meaningful part. No additional parameter context is required.

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 ('Return') and a clear resource ('all available strategy profiles, action kinds, default decision/cocktail configs, signal components, and the fields that can be tuned'). It explicitly says 'all available', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fpl_strategy_info (likely a single strategy lookup) and action-oriented tools like fpl_recommend_moves. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 makes the tool's role as a catalog/overview apparent, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The usage is implied by the word 'catalog' and the sibling names (e.g., fpl_recommend_moves for actions), but no explicit routing is offered. This matches the 'implied usage' level.

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