dancerudiments_catalogue

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already tell the agent this is a safe, closed-world read, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds a genuine scoping fact, that this reads native data without a motion-engine fallback, but that clause is cryptic and no further behaviour (pagination, filtering, failure modes) is disclosed. Adds some value beyond the annotations, not a lot.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The semicolon clause is an odd fragment rather than a well-structured qualifier, but nothing is bloated or buried.

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?

Complexity is low and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Even so, for a paged catalogue read the description supplies no usable parameter semantics, no guidance on when to prefer it over dancerudiments_sample, and no explanation of its "fallback" clause, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 single nested "arguments" object carries limit, offset and query with no descriptions anywhere. The description does not mention paging, result caps, or what query matches, so it clearly fails to compensate for the coverage gap; only the "catalogue" framing hints that listing/paging is involved.

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?

It uses a specific verb ("Read") on a specific-sounding resource ("native movement descriptors, periods and dimensions"), which tells an agent this is a reference/catalogue lookup. However, the terminology is domain jargon and the description never says plainly what the tool returns or how it differs from the closely named sibling dancerudiments_sample, and it has no title to lean on.

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 phrase "no motion engine fallback" gestures at a constraint but never states when to call this versus dancerudiments_sample or stemlab_rudiments. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no explicit statement of the selection rule an agent should apply.

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