aetre_system_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns' metadata but does not mention side effects, read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors. The optional api_key parameter hints at tier verification but the description does not explain when it is needed. For an introspection tool, read-only status is likely but unstated, and the description fails to clarify any behavioral nuances beyond the basic return.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('comprehensive system introspection') and enumerates the specific content areas. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and contains no unnecessary words. The structure is efficient, though it could benefit from breaking out the categories for readability; still, it earns points for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally explain what 'returning' entails in terms of structure or usage. It does not specify the return format, pagination, or how the query_type parameter shapes the output beyond the schema's enum. It also does not mention that query_type defaults to 'all' (schema provides that). The description is adequate for a simple catalog tool but leaves room for an agent to wonder about output structure and edge cases.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (api_key and query_type with its enum). The description adds high-level category names that roughly map to enum values (e.g., 'mathematical tools' -> 'tools', 'institutional tiers' -> 'institutional_tiers'), but it does not explicitly tie the listed categories to specific query_type values. This adds marginal semantic context beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the schema's already thorough documentation.

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 purpose: comprehensive system introspection returning specific categories of AETRE metadata (architecture, fixtures, adapters, connectors, tools, tiers). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all specific computational functions (e.g., aetre_calculate_voi, aetre_triage_proposal). An agent can immediately recognize this as a catalog/inventory tool, not an operation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is evident from the name and description that this is for introspection, but there is no explicit guidance like 'use this to discover available capabilities' or 'for a specific calculation, use one of the aetre_* function tools'. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out, leaving the agent to infer that this is a discovery tool.

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