get_markers_catalog

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It describes the content but not what the tool returns (e.g., a list, a reference table), whether it is read-only, or any formatting or availability details. The static noun 'catalog' hints at a reference lookup but does not disclose behavioral traits explicitly.

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 very short and front-loaded: it states the resource type first and then gives concrete examples. No wasted words, though it is terse to the point of omitting useful usage and behavioral context.

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 parameter-free catalog retrieval tool, the description is minimally viable: it names the topic and key subtopics. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling catalog tools, the description could usefully add what kind of data is returned and when to consult this catalog rather than a sibling one.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; no additional parameter documentation is required.

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 identifies the resource clearly: a catalog of BPMN markers, and even lists the main categories (loops, multi-instance, compensation). This distinguishes it from sibling catalogs like activities or attributes, though it lacks an explicit verb. The tool name 'get' provides the action, making the purpose reasonably clear.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over its many catalog siblings (get_activities_catalog, get_attributes_catalog, get_flow_elements_catalog, etc.). The usage context is only implied by the word 'catalog' and the marker examples; neither explicit conditions nor exclusions are provided.

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