kernel_config_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; "List" implies a non-mutating read, which is the most important behavioral fact for a config-surface tool. It does not say whether the result is paginated, whether it requires auth, or whether the listing is filtered or complete, so meaningful disclosure gaps remain.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first, usage second, with no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated, and the word "all" works against clarity given the optional filter.

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 simple single-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (descriptions, types, categories) and why to call it. It omits any treatment of the category filter, which is the only non-trivial thing an agent must decide before calling.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single `category` parameter or its nine enum values. Worse, "List all known configurable settings" reads as unfiltered, without acknowledging that results can be narrowed by category, so the agent gets no guidance on this parameter from either source.

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?

"List all known configurable settings with their descriptions, types, and categories" gives a specific verb (list) plus resource (configurable settings) and states the returned fields, which separates it in spirit from kernel_config_get/set. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named kernel_config_list, leaving the catalog-vs-current-values distinction to inference.

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?

"Use this to discover what can be configured" implies a discovery-first workflow and hints at a typical predecessor to kernel_config_get/kernel_config_set, but never names those alternatives or states when-not to use this tool. Usage guidance is present but only implied.

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