get_spark_connected_apps_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone carries the burden. It only states the return behavior without disclosing side effects (e.g., read-only, no state changes). For a list tool, it's implicitly safe, but the description does not explicitly state that it performs no modifications or consumes significant resources.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words or unnecessary details. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action ('Returns'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects), the description is complete enough for a user to understand the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not describe the output format beyond 'list and capabilities', and the output schema is not shown in the prompt, so some context about the returned structure is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no parameters). Therefore, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adequately matches this.

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 returns a complete list and capabilities of external tools and Google Workspace apps, which is a specific, actionable verb ('Returns') with a defined resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'request_spark_connected_app_action' which likely performs an action rather than listing.

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 needing to enumerate available apps and their capabilities, contrasting with the sibling action tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over other listing tools or include exclusions, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

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