peaka_list_catalogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the tool lists all available catalogs and returns names, types, and connection info, which is especially valuable since there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination, errors, or access requirements, but for a simple read-only list the key behavior is covered.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action and return contents, the second gives the operational prerequisite. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with one fully documented parameter, this description covers purpose, return summary, and projectId acquisition. The absence of an output schema leaves the exact response structure only summarized rather than fully specified, and potential pagination or limit behavior is not mentioned, but these are minor gaps for this tool.

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% for the single projectId parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description only references projectId in the context of the prerequisite workflow and does not add format, constraints, or additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific operation ('List all available catalogs') and identifies the returned data (catalog names, types, connection info), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling discovery tools like peaka_list_schemas or peaka_list_tables, though 'catalogs' is a distinct resource.

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 explicit workflow guidance: if projectId is unknown, call peaka_list_projects first, ask the user, and retain the projectId for later calls. This clearly orients the agent on when a sibling tool is needed first, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with other resource-listing tools.

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