catalog_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what happens if the ID doesn't exist, what fields are returned, or whether the two collections return different shapes.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing detail elsewhere.

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 two-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description covers the basics. With no output schema, it should say more about what the detail response contains or how the two collections differ, so the agent knows what to expect.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry weight. It does partially compensate: 'tugas akhir atau buku' names the two values of the collection enum, and 'ID numerik' explains the id format. However, it does not explain that collection is required to disambiguate the same ID across collections, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 (ambil) and resource (detail tugas akhir atau buku) keyed by ID, which is clear enough to understand the operation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like catalog_search or repository_item, which also return item-level data.

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 on when to use this versus catalog_search (query-based discovery) or repository_item. The 'based on numeric ID' clause implies it is a direct-lookup tool, but the agent must infer that condition itself.

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