coppelia_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful matching semantics (space-separated terms matched against relative path and robot alias), which goes beyond structured data, but it omits case sensitivity, whether terms are ANDed or ORed, result ordering, and what happens when the limit truncates results.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the matching rule and the kind filter. Zero padding and no restatement of the name.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never explains limit behavior, match combination logic, or result shape, which an agent needs in order to query reliably and interpret truncated results.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `query` semantics and enumerates `kind: all|model|scene`, covering two of the three parameters; however, `limit` (default 50) is never mentioned, so the truncation behavior of results is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: it searches CoppeliaSim model (.ttm) and scene (.ttt) files, and names the fields matched (relative path, robot alias). The scope is clear enough to separate it from siblings like coppelia_import_model or coppelia_scene, though it never explicitly says how it differs from those.

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 a discovery/lookup use case but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. An agent is left to infer that this is the catalog lookup step before coppelia_import_model, with no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.

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