mcp_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Describe' clearly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description lists the covered items. However, it does not explicitly mention authentication, side effects, or failure behavior, and it adds little beyond the verb and object list.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word adds value by specifying the action and the objects it covers.

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 no-parameter introspection tool with an output schema, this description is mostly complete: it names the logical content areas (catalog, contract, profiles, aliases). However, terms like 'active catalog' and 'legacy aliases' are left undefined, and no context is given for when to expect these elements.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not attempt to 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 uses the specific verb 'Describe' followed by a clear list of objects ('active catalog', 'response contract', 'profiles', 'legacy aliases'), making the tool's core function evident. It is distinct from the sibling tools, none of which appear to be catalog/introspection-related. A small amount of ambiguity about what 'active catalog' precisely refers to prevents a perfect score.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no exclusions or alternative tools. The only implied use case comes from the tool's name and general purpose, which is not enough to qualify as meaningful usage guidance.

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