List commands, functions, charts, samples, formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so a 3 is the appropriate ceiling. The description usefully reveals what each entry carries (commands include parameters and ribbon place; functions include signature and description), which helps an agent know what it gets back, but says nothing about result size, filtering behavior, or empty-match handling.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs all five catalog categories without filler. The nested parentheticals make it dense, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, two-parameter catalog tool with no output schema, the description covers every kind an agent can request and what each contains, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 50%: 'kind' has no description (only an enum) and 'filter' is documented in the schema. The description compensates partially by explaining what each 'kind' value yields, but it never clarifies the 'kind' selector itself or how 'filter' interacts with it, so it adds only modest meaning beyond the schema.

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 enumerates exactly what the catalog covers (commands, functions, charts, samples, formats) and ties 'commands' to the sibling run_gridcraft_commands, which cleanly separates it from the execution tool. It is a bit indirect — 'What GridCraft can do' never says 'list' or 'retrieve' — but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: pointing at run_gridcraft_commands for commands suggests this is the discovery step before execution, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance that 'kind' selects the subset returned. The relationship to the sibling is the only routing signal.

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