catalyst_edge_claim_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that records are immutable and that results are bounded (suggesting pagination), but it does not explain pagination mechanics, error handling, or rate limits. This is minimal but not completely absent.

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?

A single sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the core functionality efficiently without waste.

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 a simple paginated list with an output schema present, so return values are covered. The description is adequate for understanding the primary use case, though it leaves some context (e.g., what a 'grouped claim' is) implicit.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (claim_id, limit, cursor). The only hint is 'bounded page' which relates to limit/cursor, but it falls short of compensating for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return one bounded page of immutable source records supporting a grouped claim.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tool (catalyst_edge_score) by focusing on source records, not scores.

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 implies usage when needing source records for a grouped claim, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tool is not mentioned, so there is no direct comparison.

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