mode_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait — a static, offline, engine-free read of the shipped database — and implies a read-only catalog. It does not state response size/format or confirm no side effects on project state, which matters for a tool that returns 274 entries across versions.

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 tightly packed sentences with the scale (274 IPs), the taxonomy, and the offline property all front-loaded. The parenthetical lists are dense but each item carries information; nothing is filler.

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 two-optional-filter catalog tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description still sketches what comes back (per-version mode lists, parameter counts, IP type), which is the main thing an agent needs. Only the offline/engine-free constraint and return shape are lightly covered rather than fully specified.

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%: both `ip` and `kind` are documented in the schema itself, including the exact ip_type values. The description adds no further semantics such as case sensitivity, partial-match behavior, or whether filters combine. Baseline 3.

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 resource (a catalogue of every IP mode) and adds concrete scope details — 274 IPs, the four ip_type categories, per-version mode lists and parameter counts. The 'offline ... shipped database' framing separates it from project-scoped siblings like mode_list and catalog_index, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'Works without starting the engine' implicitly tells the agent to use this for discovery before an engine/project exists, which is useful routing context. But there is no explicit when-not, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. mode_list, ip_library) for the case where a project is already open.

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