catalog_inventory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful traits: isolation scanning, resumable checkpointing, and fault tolerance for failed plugins. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens to the output, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and quickly covers key behavioral notes, making every sentence earn its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return values, job handling, and parameter usage. It covers the core action and fault tolerance but omits usage guidance and parameter details. The lack of return-value information is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 for parameter meaning. It fails to mention 'formats' or 'max_seconds' at all, even though the schema provides defaults and enums. The description adds no insight into how these parameters affect the inventory process, leaving agents to infer from the schema alone.

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's action: discovering candidates in given formats, scanning each in isolation, indexing parameters/programs, and checkpointing a resumable job. It distinguishes from siblings like catalog_scan by emphasizing isolation and indexing. However, 'candidate' is not explicitly defined as a plugin, though the context of VST3/AudioUnit formats implies it.

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 description implies usage when you want to inventory all plugins in specified formats, and the resumable job suggests a long-running process. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, relying on sibling names for differentiation. There is no guidance on selecting between this and catalog_inventory_resume or catalog_scan.

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