ap_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the catalog's subject-matter scope, which is useful, but says nothing about the return format or how the entries are keyed — and with no output schema, that gap is the description's to fill.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and immediately followed by the payload inventory. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema, enumerating the catalog's contents effectively doubles as a return-value summary, so an agent knows what it will get back. It stops short of describing entry structure or how to consume these definitions in downstream calls (ap_fit_calibration, ap_tune_parameters).

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 (List) and enumerates the resource types it returns — cue definitions, cognitive states, emotion formulas, parameters, audience profile, target-score meanings — which makes its role as a reference/catalog lookup clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ap_inspect_dataset, but the enumerated content is distinctive enough to separate it in practice.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or mention of alternatives such as ap_inspect_dataset or ap_template. The listing of definitional content implicitly signals 'call this to discover valid values/meanings,' which is a reasonable inference but is never stated.

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