Get project artifact catalog

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the catalog is bounded, project-isolated, and may include redacted excerpts, which gives behavioral context beyond the annotation flags. No contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a conditional detail. No wasted 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?

Despite the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool with low schema coverage. It does not explain pagination (cursor), filtering (kind, query), or output size controls (limit, max_content_bytes), leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 only 30% (3 of 10 params have descriptions). The description's mention of 'redacted live document excerpts' hints at include_content and redact_secrets, but it does not clarify limit, cursor, kind, query, or max_content_bytes, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 identifies the action (read), the resource (local artifact catalog), and its key characteristic (project-isolated, created by refresh_project_catalog). This distinguishes it from live-source queries and other catalog tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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?

It implies the catalog must first be built by refresh_project_catalog, giving a clear prerequisite. However, it does not state when to use this over related getters like get_project_artifacts or search_code, leaving selection to inference.

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