ms_task_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 'list' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what output format to expect, or any prerequisites. This lack of behavioral detail is a notable gap.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and no superfluous information. 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 zero-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool returns at a high level without needing to explain return value details. The only slight gap is the lack of explicit usage context, but overall it is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by specifying exactly what is listed (high-level workflows and helper tools), which is meaningful even though no parameter details are needed.

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 the specific verb 'list' with a clear resource ('high-level workflows and helper tools'), and it is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which serve as a catalog. 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 intended use is implied (e.g., when you need to discover available workflows and tools), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of alternatives. The context is clear enough for a catalog tool, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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