browse_catalog

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond the annotations: the ~2k token cost and the exact digest fields returned, which helps an agent budget context. It stops short of describing truncation or paging behavior for large libraries.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the concrete deliverable (the digest and its fields) before any next-step guidance. The middle sentence is somewhat chatty ('you know the operator's repo, data, and recurring pain'), but it still orients the agent toward its own selection judgment.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the digest's contents and rough size (~2k tokens), plus the follow-up options. For a one-optional-param read tool, this is enough for an agent to call it correctly and know what comes back.

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% and the single optional 'category' filter is documented there with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only mentions 'category' as a returned field, not as a filter, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 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?

States a specific resource and scope: the entire AI Loop Library as a compact digest, enumerating exactly what each entry contains (id, category, use_when, verifier strength). It also names the follow-up siblings (get_loop for depth, render_run_protocol to run one), so an agent can distinguish this from deeper or execution-oriented tools.

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?

Says this is the highest-signal single call and describes the follow-on path (get_loop for depth, render_run_protocol to run), giving a clear usage context. However it never contrasts with close siblings search_loops or pick_loop_for_goal, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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