kernel_marketplace_catalog_browse

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: results are aggregated across all catalog providers, and each item carries installed status. It omits whether the operation is strictly read-only (implied but unstated), how limit interacts across providers, and what permissions or auth are needed, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 with the resource and the key aggregation behavior front-loaded; nothing is redundant. The 'etc.' after the item list is slightly loose but does not waste space.

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 four-optional-parameter browse tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the catalog contains and that installed status is included, but leaves result shape, ordering, and cross-provider pagination behavior unaddressed. It is adequate but not complete for a discovery tool with no structured return documentation.

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 all four parameters (type, limit, query, category) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and the 'per provider' semantics of limit. The description adds only the framing that filtering happens across merged providers; it adds no syntax or interpretation beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (browse) and resource (unified marketplace catalog), and enumerates the item kinds it covers plus the notable behavior that results merge every provider with installed status. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like kernel_marketplace_browse, kernel_store_browse, or kernel_marketplace_catalog_providers, leaving the agent to guess which browse surface to use.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the description never mentions kernel_marketplace_browse or kernel_marketplace_catalog_providers as alternatives, nor does it say whether this is the preferred entry point for discovery. Usage is only implied by the word 'browse'.

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