nemesis_omniguard_catalog

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals it's read-only; the description adds the behavioral detail that passing a description returns a suggested sector+event. It doesn't describe output format or limitations, but for a simple catalog this adds sufficient transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, and what the parameter does. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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% and the schema describes the parameter well ('What they're building'), but the description adds the effect of the parameter (get a suggested sector+event), which is meaningful beyond the schema and helps the agent understand how to use it.

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 specific verbs ('List') and resources ('Omniguard sectors and events'), explains the purpose (pick the right business-logic firewall), and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing it's a read-only catalog plus optional suggestion. It clearly states what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('for what the developer is building') and explains how the optional 'describe' parameter feeds into a suggestion. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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