Manager Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what the catalog exposes (documents, lists, reports, settings) and that it reflects operations allowed by current tick boxes, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, and includes a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, and the filtering guidance is concise. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the tool's role as a discovery mechanism and mentions filtering. However, it doesn't explain the 'allowed_only' parameter or the 'business' parameter, which could be important for correct invocation. Given the output schema exists and the description covers the main use case, this is slightly above average but not fully complete.

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. The description mentions 'search' and 'group' as filters, which maps to the 'search' and 'group' parameters, but it doesn't explain 'limit', 'business', or 'allowed_only'. The description adds some meaning for two of five parameters but leaves the others undocumented. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description partially compensates but doesn't fully cover all parameters.

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 purpose: browsing the resource catalog of a business, listing documents, lists, reports, and settings, with operations allowed by current tick boxes. It also explicitly says to start here when you don't know a resource name, distinguishing it from other manager_* tools. The verb 'browse' and resource 'resource catalog' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Start here when you do not know a resource name' and mentions filtering with 'search' or 'group'. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manager_list or manager_get. It also implies it's a discovery/exploration tool, which is distinct from the more specific manager_* operations.

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