api_catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. "Search/paginate" implies a read-only operation, and "discover hidden capabilities" hints at a distinctive behavior: surfacing interfaces that may not be obvious. Still, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any limitations, so it only partially covers behavioral transparency.

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. Both the core operation and the notable "hidden capabilities" aspect earn their place, making this an efficient and well-structured definition.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of guidance. It covers the tool's purpose and parameter meanings at a high level, but it does not explain what results look like, how "hidden capabilities" manifest, or how to use the returned catalog entries with related tools like api_describe_interface or api_invoke. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter docs. It does reasonably well: "by name" clarifies the query parameter, "API5/API7" maps to the library enum, and "Search/paginate" implies how limit and offset are used. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it does not explain default behavior or exact matching rules.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search/paginate every installed API5/API7 interface by name." This clearly identifies what the tool does and its scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like sdk_search or api_describe_interface, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a broad catalog search use case, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer api_catalog over sibling tools such as sdk_search, api_describe_interface, or api_invoke. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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