get_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it goes little beyond one clause. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about whether a saved search returns a live/dynamic result set, result ordering, pagination, or error behavior for a nonexistent name.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the object of the lookup is stated immediately. It is efficient but arguably too terse for the disclosure gaps noted 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there is only one parameter. Still, for a tool that accepts an ambiguous name across two entity types with no annotations, the description leaves the agent without enough context to call it confidently.

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% and the single parameter 'name' is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It partially does by clarifying that 'name' may refer to either a catalog or a saved search, but it does not say whether this is the display name, an ID, or how ambiguity between the two is resolved.

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 (get) and resource (list of image files) scoped to a gThumb catalog or saved search, which distinguishes it from list_catalogs (which returns the catalogs themselves). It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer the catalog-vs-images distinction.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you have a catalog name and want its images. However, no alternative is named (e.g. find_images for cross-catalog queries, or list_catalogs to discover valid names), and there is no guidance on what happens with an unknown or invalid name.

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