uc_catalog_list

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, indicating a read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, limits). Since annotations cover safety, description is minimal but not contradictory. Score 2 for not adding value beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No superfluous words or unnecessary details.

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 simple list operation with 5 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It could mention that it returns a paginated list, but it covers the basic function.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. Parameter names are self-explanatory (max_results, page_token, include_browse, etc.), but the description adds no additional meaning or context about their usage or constraints.

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 'List catalogs' with the specific API endpoint. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like uc_catalog_create, uc_catalog_delete, etc., which have different verbs.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. The purpose is implied (listing), but there is no mention of when not to use or comparison with other list tools. Score reflects implied usage but lack of explicit context.

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