CPI API Catalog (discover entity sets & operations)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states what the tool returns (a list of OData entity sets and function imports) and implicitly indicates it is a read-only discovery operation. It adds useful context about how the catalog relates to other tools, though it doesn't explicitly mention pagination, required auth, or exact response format.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the description fully explains its role in the broader workflow by naming the dependent tools. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect and when to use it, given the context of sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% with the optional 'filter' parameter clearly described as a case-insensitive substring filter. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description need not add more. The baseline of 3 applies here; no additional semantic information is provided or necessary.

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 tool lists every OData entity set and function import for the CPI tenant. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it enables discovery of targets for cpi_query, cpi_get_entity, cpi_invoke_function, and cpi_write, making its purpose specific and non-overlapping.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to discover what cpi_query / cpi_get_entity / cpi_invoke_function / cpi_write can target.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool, setting it as a discovery prerequisite for those other tools, which effectively defines both when and how to use it.

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