tools_catalogLists built-in tools available to agent configs, including each tool's description and permission settings, and shows permission modes for custom and MCP tools.
Lists the built-in tools agent configs can use, with each tool's description and permission settings, plus the permission modes for custom and MCP tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the payload shape: per-tool description and permission settings, plus permission modes for custom and MCP tools. It says nothing about pagination or volume, which is a minor gap for a catalog listing.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the detail about returned content following. No filler, no redundant restatement of the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does specify descriptions, permission settings, and permission modes. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could note whether custom/MCP tools themselves are listed or only their permission 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so description-based parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is unconditional rather than filtered.
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 concrete verb (Lists) and resource (built-in tools agent configs can use) plus what each entry contains. It is clearly distinct from inventory siblings like model_providers_catalog or skills_list, though it never explicitly names a neighboring tool to sharpen the boundary.
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?
Usage is implied: call it when you need to know which built-in tools an agent config can reference and what permission modes apply. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative, but the topic is narrow enough that context is reasonably inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.