query_builtin_library_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose the key behavior of not modifying native libraries. However, it does not clarify result behavior, pagination semantics, query matching rules, or any failure modes. It is minimally transparent but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the resource, and the key safety constraint.

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?

The output schema may cover return structure, and the one-line description captures the core read-only query purpose, so basic invocation is possible. But the absence of parameter semantics, usage differentiation from sibling library tools, and any behavioral detail leaves the description only minimally complete for a catalog query tool.

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 adds no direct meaning for the five parameters. 'Browse or search' loosely implies the role of the optional query parameter, but kind, limit, offset, and diptrace_root are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer their semantics solely from names and schema constraints.

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 a specific action—'Browse or search the installed DipTrace catalog'—with a precise resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from library-modifying tools by adding 'without modifying native libraries.' This is specific and unambiguous.

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 read-only usage for catalog browsing/searching but does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings like query_library_items, scan_component_libraries, or get_library_component. There is no explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance, though the non-modifying qualifier provides a mild exclusionary hint.

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