conduyt_api_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the response contains exact current endpoint counts, that the catalog is the full REST surface, and that not every endpoint has an MCP tool. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only behavior, auth requirements, or response size/pagination, but the discovery framing implies a safe read operation.

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 efficiently ordered sentences: purpose first, usage cue second, and the important coverage caveat/alternative last. No sentence is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free discovery tool with no output schema, the description provides the key context an agent needs: call it first, expect endpoint counts and schemas, understand it covers the full REST surface, and know where to check MCP callability.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics is essentially N/A and the baseline is 4; the description correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 verb and resource ('Discover all Conduyt CRM API endpoints'), scopes it to 90+ domains with request/response schemas, and distinguishes it from the coverage sibling by noting the catalog covers the full REST surface while conduyt_mcp_coverage maps callable endpoints.

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?

It explicitly says to 'Call this first' to learn what the CRM can do, and names the alternative (conduyt_mcp_coverage) for the precise question of which endpoints are callable through MCP tools versus API-only.

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