infomaniak_catalogue

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), lowering the burden on the description. The line 'Discovery does not grant execution' adds genuinely useful behavioral context about side effects, but pagination behavior and the shape of returned metadata are left unstated.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the caveat follows. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally sketch what the catalog returns and how pagination works, which it does not. It does establish the discovery-only nature of the operation, which is the most important thing an agent needs, but the 0% parameter coverage leaves gaps.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails it. The phrase 'by product/method' loosely maps to the product and method filters, but limit and offset receive no explanation of ordering, defaults, or page-size behavior.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Browse all public API metadata by product/method'), which is clearly a discovery/catalog operation distinct from the search, read, and status siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings or explicitly contrasting the tool with them, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The only guidance is the caveat 'Discovery does not grant execution', which clarifies an outcome but not when to pick this tool over infomaniak_search or infomaniak_read. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the word 'browse'.

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