get_tool_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully lists what the catalog contains and the OpenAPI availability condition, but it does not disclose whether refresh_capabilities causes side effects, whether network calls are made, or how availability is determined.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the primary purpose first and then compacts the distinguishing metadata fields and caveat into a readable, efficient structure.

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 tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It omits semantics for profile, refresh_capabilities, and include_server_availability, and does not explain the return shape or how filters combine, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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?

The schema already documents category, permission, side_effect, and availability, while profile, refresh_capabilities, and include_server_availability remain undocumented. The description adds context by naming output fields that map to permission, side effect, and availability, but it does not explain the boolean parameters or the profile parameter, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 verb and resource: it returns an agent-facing catalog of all MCP tools, and lists specific metadata fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from related introspection tools like get_api_capabilities, but its scope is specific enough to be understood.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. The only conditional phrase, 'when OpenAPI is available,' describes behavior rather than usage context, so an agent is left to infer when this catalog should be consulted.

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