tool_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Side Effects: None' and 'Typical Runtime: <1 second', which are important behavioral traits. The output is also described. No contradictions.

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 reasonably concise with a hint line and a few lines of text. It uses emojis for structuring but is not overly verbose. The key information is front-loaded. Slightly wordy but acceptable.

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 5 optional parameters with full schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description covers side effects and runtime, which is adequate. It does not explain return values in depth but the output schema likely handles that. Complete enough for its purpose.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—just summarizes the action parameter roles. It does not deepen understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it is a unified catalog tool for browsing tools and getting help. It specifies the actions 'list' and 'help', making the purpose very specific and distinct from siblings like 'automation' or 'memory'.

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 when to use (to list tools or get documentation) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. The context is clear enough given the tool name and schema.

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