Account catalog

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, but the description discloses the key behavioral side effect: setting publish=true creates a browsable page and returns its URL, with Cloudflare Access sign-in by default. It also explains how quick tunnels are represented and the inAccount=false flag. This adds valuable context beyond the annotation.

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 dense paragraph, but it is well-structured: main purpose first, then entry details, then quick tunnel caveat, then publish behavior. Every sentence contributes new information. It is slightly long but efficient and front-loaded with the core function.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must explain the return value. It describes what each catalog entry contains (public/private/access, static vs. server) and covers the publish URL behavior. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or error cases, but for a list-style tool these are minor gaps. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the publish parameter ('turns the catalog into a browsable page and returns its URL') and clarifies the access parameter default (owner email). These details go beyond the schema descriptions, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 the tool's function: it lists every cloudfact in the account, grouped by project, from the account's perspective. It also distinguishes itself from potential siblings by noting it includes deploys from other machines and excludes quick tunnels without a local record. The verb 'catalog' is implicit but the purpose is 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 when to use this tool (for an account-wide view) versus a local view, but it never explicitly names alternatives or says 'use list for local records'. The note about deploys from other machines hints at differentiation, but there is no direct 'when not to use' guidance.

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