list_catalog_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It correctly implies a read operation but does not mention potential behavior like pagination, rate limits, or what happens when the catalog is empty. The description is too sparse for a tool with no other behavioral cues.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the action and the optional filter. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic operation. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., list of entry IDs, full entry objects) or any constraints (e.g., maximum results), which would be helpful for an agent to process the results correctly.

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 schema has one parameter 'search' with no description. The tool description adds that it is an 'optional substring filter on name/id', which provides meaningful semantic context. However, it doesn't clarify case sensitivity or wildcard behavior, so it's not fully exhaustive.

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 it lists MCP catalog entries from a specific source (obot's default catalog). The verb 'list' is unambiguous, and the optional filter is mentioned. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool list_mcp_servers, which might confuse agents about which list to use.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't specify that this is for browsing predefined entries versus the list_mcp_servers tool which lists added servers. An agent would have to infer the distinction from tool names alone.

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