plate_catalog

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, and it does a reasonably good job: it states the tool is local-only, makes no network or model call, and honestly reports missing or invalid library state. It does not disclose output format or detailed error behavior, but the honesty guarantee is valuable.

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 with no redundancy: it front-loads the search action and resource, then adds key caveats about local behavior and reporting. Every sentence earns its place without wasting token budget.

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?

Core purpose, local-only behavior, and honest state reporting are covered, which is enough to avoid catastrophic misuse. However, there is no output schema, so the missing return-value description is a notable gap, and parameter usage and sibling alternatives are not addressed.

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 should compensate for the four optional parameters. It partially maps to the kind enum by mentioning stacks, kits, presets, and recipes, but it says nothing about query, limit, or domain and does not explain how filters combine.

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 identifies the tool as a search operation over locally available finishing stacks, kits, presets, and recipes, which conveys the core purpose. It also hints at differentiation through 'locally available' and 'no network or model call', but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like plate_inspect or plate_check.

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 the tool is for searching local library contents and notes that it makes no network or model calls, which gives useful selection context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving routing largely to inference.

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