Browse/search this server's tools by category

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that — it reads the server's own catalog with 'no game client required' and discloses what each result entry contains (quality, execution phase/cost, capabilities, safety flags). No mutation, auth, or rate-limit caveats are given, but none are expected for a read-only catalog browse.

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?

Front-loaded with the value proposition, then the invocation modes, then the result contents. Slightly dense in the trailing enumeration of return fields, but every sentence carries information an agent needs to pick the right mode.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields each entry yields. Combined with the no-arg overview behavior and the no-game-client note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly in any of its three modes.

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 100% and already documents the three params, but the description adds the key behavioral semantics the schema cannot: that calling with NO arguments produces the category overview, which is the prerequisite for discovering valid category names. It also clarifies that search ranks against a natural-language goal.

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 clear verb (browse/search) applied to a specific resource (this server's own tool catalog), and the opening line 'Discover the right tool without scanning all of them' frames the tool's role precisely as a discovery/meta tool among query-oriented siblings.

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?

Explicitly maps invocation modes to intent: no-argument overview, { category } for a category listing, { search } for goal-ranked results. This is strong when-to-use guidance, though it never routes the agent to alternative siblings like suggest-tools or tool-schema for adjacent needs.

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