catalog_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool counts documents by site, category, language, and top tags, and that it does not perform a search. However, it does not mention any required permissions, rate limits, or whether it returns aggregated counts or detailed lists. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then immediately providing usage guidance. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides a good overview of what the tool returns: counts by site, category, language, and top tags. It covers the essential information an AI agent needs to understand the tool's output and use it correctly, though it could mention whether the counts are absolute or relative.

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 input schema has one optional parameter 'visibility' with clear enum values and a description in the schema. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides full meaning. The description adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool provides a summary of the OnMind knowledge base, counting documents by site, category, language, and top tags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_content (which performs searches) and get_entry (which retrieves specific entries) by emphasizing that it is an orientation tool used before searching.

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 explicitly instructs to use it BEFORE searching to orient oneself, indicating the primary use case. It also says what it does without searching, implying it is not for detailed retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools beyond this implicit contrast.

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