sprut_list_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation and says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result count behavior. For a low-risk catalog read the gap is modest, and the output schema covers return shape, but the absence of any behavioral statement keeps it at a minimum-viable level.

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 sentences plus a compact Args block, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every line carries information and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema that covers return values, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. It lacks behavioral notes such as pagination limits or whether limit caps results, which is a minor but real gap given there are no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: search is explained as a model/manufacturer query with concrete examples (Aubess, TS000F) and limit as the max templates returned. It adds real meaning beyond the bare 'search'/'limit' titles, though it omits default values and search-matching semantics.

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 verb pair (list/search) and resource (device templates in the SprutHub catalog), which is clearly distinct from sprut_list_devices, sprut_list_rooms, and sprut_list_extensions. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the 'catalog' noun plus the paired sprut_get_catalog_template makes the boundary easy to infer.

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 only implied: the search parameter hints that this is the discovery tool for finding templates by model/manufacturer. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus sprut_list_devices or sprut_get_catalog_template, and no exclusions or preconditions given.

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