Get shared device-type library

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns the complete `catalogue` and its `revision`, links that revision to set_org_catalog, and states that 'Any member may read it'. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint by describing the return payload and access scope.

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 compact and every clause earns its place: it defines the resource, contrasts it with project catalogs, states the return value, notes the downstream tool, and gives permission information. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it says what the tool returns, who can use it, and how the result relates to set_org_catalog. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 `org` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including defaults and how to discover options via list_orgs. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an organisation's shared device-type library'. It distinguishes itself from project-level catalogs by stating it is 'separate from each project's own `catalogue`', so an agent can tell it apart from tools like get_project.

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 clearly signals the tool is for the org-wide shared library rather than a project's own catalog, and it gives the follow-up step of passing the returned `revision` to set_org_catalog. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for project-level catalogs, but the context is clear.

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