List master data catalogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'master data is never changed' is confirmatory. It adds genuine context beyond annotations: the returned fields (id/name, plus teamIds/roleIds/personId for people) and the cross-tool id interoperability.

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 dense sentences; the catalog list is front-loaded and every clause carries information. It is text-heavy but not padded, with only minor redundancy in the 'never changed' clause and the duplicated type enumeration.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description still conveys the useful shape of results and how the ids feed other tools. Combined with the 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only explicit usage routing 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%, so the schema already documents types, activeOnly and searchText, and the description largely restates the enum set rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning. The only extra signal is the implicit 'empty means all' behavior, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Reads the catalogs of the existing master data') and enumerates the exact catalog types covered. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like rillsoft_resource_pool_resource_get or rillsoft_resource_pool_ris_list without opening any schema.

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 implies downstream usage by naming the tools whose ids match (rillsoft_task_employee_assignment_set, rillsoft_resource_pool_resource_get, analysis report), but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to the many sibling list/get tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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