Configuration Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: results are sorted by name, 'total counts every match' while 'items lists the first', and the limit parameter affects only the returned items. This gives the agent a clear mental model of pagination and result semantics.

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-loading the action and purpose. The first sentence states what it does and why; the second clarifies pagination and gives examples. No unnecessary words, and every clause earns its place.

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 catalog list tool with an output schema present, the description covers all key aspects: what is listed (kinds), how results are ordered, the meaning of 'total' vs 'items', and the primary use case of finding exact names for other tools. Given the low complexity and available schema, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by explaining how the parameters interact (e.g., 'name' as partial match, 'limit' affecting items but not total) and by framing the purpose of the 'kind' parameter through the listed object types. This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('templates, commands, contacts, groups or time periods'), and the specific purpose ('to find the exact name another tool needs'). It also provides concrete example queries, making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool does and when it is appropriate.

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 gives illustrative use cases ('which service templates exist for disks' and 'what is the host group of tenant X called') that imply when to use this tool for discovery of configuration names. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity with sibling tools like find_hosts or find_services.

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