personal_catalog

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it respects a capture gate, requires capture_id for normal reads, and maintenance=true performs an audited read-only fallback that does not write archives. However, it doesn't describe the response format, data freshness, or side effects of the tier=full re-declaration, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 dense but compact, delivering key behavioral rules in two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then explains the exception path. Some may find it dense, but each clause carries operational meaning; missing a short hint about the view param's role.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers operational preconditions, the fallback path, audit implications, and the post-read discipline, which is strong for a read tool. It doesn't explain the difference between view enum options or return format, but for a survey read operation the critical workflow context is present.

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 low (25%), and the description adds significant parameter semantics: it explains the capture_id precondition, the maintenance=true fallback's purpose, side effects (trace audit, no archive writing), and the requirement to later re-declare with tier=full. It does not explicitly explain the view enum values, but it contextualizes the key parameters well.

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 names the verb (读取/read) and the central resource (v2 全局勘察/global survey), distinguishing it as the read tool for the v2 global survey. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like personal_retrieve or personal_derivation_status, so it is clear about what it reads but not fully differentiated from all siblings.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: regular reads must first complete turn preflight capture and provide capture_id, and when footprint/strategy messages are blocked by the capture gate, maintenance=true can be used for read-only fallback. It implies when not to use it (when writing is needed, use capture/add_record), but doesn't name specific alternatives.

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