texture_catalog

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add one piece of non-obvious behavior, that the epoch/generation tokens must be preserved across calls, which hints at optimistic-concurrency semantics. It stops short of saying what happens if they are omitted or have expired.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler and the action stated first, which is the right shape. The second sentence is compressed to the point of being cryptic — it withholds what the tokens are for — so brevity comes at the cost of comprehension.

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 four-parameter list tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition leaves too much unstated: what is returned, how paging behaves, and how the epoch/generation tokens relate to the catalog results. The one genuinely important instruction it does give is under-explained.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not: limit/offset paging is never mentioned, and the meaning of map_epoch and generation is left implicit. Worse, the description calls the token "vslot_generation" while the schema parameter is named "generation", creating a naming mismatch an agent could trip on.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List texture references"), which is enough to separate it from the mutating sibling texture_apply. It does not, however, distinguish it from catalog-style siblings such as map_catalog or mapmodel_catalog, nor does it say what a "texture reference" contains.

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 second sentence implies a workflow — read the catalog, then carry map_epoch and generation into a later apply call — which is useful implied guidance. It never explicitly states when to call this versus texture_apply, nor what to do if the tokens are stale or absent.

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