list_tool_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether the catalog reflects dynamic capabilities, or any rate limits. For a metadata tool, this is a modest but present gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the one-sentence description is adequate. It could mention what fields the metadata contains, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 the schema is fully covered at 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tool capability metadata'), and adds the audience ('approval-aware clients') which hints at the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_capabilities or list_endpoint_manifest, so an agent might struggle to choose between them without opening schemas.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'used by approval-aware clients' implies a context but does not explicitly state when an agent should invoke it or when it should prefer list_capabilities, list_endpoint_manifest, or can_execute_tool.

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