clo_api_catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'no API functions are executed', which is a crucial safety trait, and mentions paging via next_offset. This gives the agent confidence that it is a read-only operation. It does not discuss side effects or error handling, but for a catalog tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes key behavioral notes (paging, no execution) without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 discovery tool with no output schema and four optional parameters, the description covers the core usage: what it does, how to paginate, and that it is safe. It does not explain the return format, but that is less critical for a catalog tool. The absence of annotations is compensated by the explicit no-execution statement.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly covers parameters: 'Search names and docstrings' implies the query parameter, 'Modules include rest_api and ApiTypes' explains module, and 'Paged' plus 'next_offset' hints at limit and offset. However, it does not explicitly map each parameter to its purpose, leaving some inference needed.

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 the tool discovers functions, types, and constants in the running CLO version, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling clo_api_search, but the mention of 'no API functions are executed' and paging hints at its read-only catalog role.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternatives like clo_api_search mentioned. The description implies it is for exploring the API catalog, but does not contrast it with similar tools. The instruction to follow next_offset is a usage detail, but not about tool selection.

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