catalog_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond purpose: it does not say whether results vary per collection, whether the option list is static or live, or what the response looks like.

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 with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, yet 'field dan opsi pencarian' is the only hint at output shape. For a per-collection discovery tool, the agent is left guessing what it will receive and how to use it before calling catalog_search.

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 description never mentions the single 'collection' parameter. It does not explain that the returned fields/options are scoped to the chosen collection, nor what the six enum values mean, leaving the schema's bare enum as the only signal.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Tampilkan field dan opsi pencarian katalog' (display catalog search fields and options). An agent can tell this is a schema/discovery tool rather than a search or fetch tool. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with siblings like catalog_search or catalog_item.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., call before catalog_search to discover valid field names), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the discovery role from the verb alone.

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