describe_tools

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the tool returns structured JSON and accepts an optional category filter. However, it does not mention side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. The description covers basic behavioral traits but lacks depth expected without annotations.

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 three sentences, but the second sentence ('Returns the guide as structured JSON') is redundant with the first sentence's 'Return a structured catalog...'. Could be more concise by combining or removing redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, filtering, and usage guidance. It mentions workflow examples and tips, which is helpful. Minor gap: no mention of the output structure being self-documenting.

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 only parameter 'category' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value. It mentions 'optionally filtered to one category' which reinforces the schema but does not explain category meanings beyond the enum.

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 clearly states the tool returns a structured catalog of Periscope's tools grouped by category, with parameters, workflow examples, and tips. It explicitly mentions optional filtering by category and directs new users to call it first, making its purpose distinct from sibling action tools.

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 explicitly recommends calling this tool first when new to the server to plan a testing workflow. While it doesn't state when not to use or list alternatives, the context implies it's a meta-tool with no direct siblings, so the guidance is clear but could be more complete.

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