list_catalog_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't clarify if it's safe, if it requires authentication, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (a list operation with filtering and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or error handling. The schema provides good parameter documentation, but overall context is limited, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective tool use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter ('params') with 0% description coverage, but this parameter is a nested object containing 5 well-documented sub-parameters (active, category, limit, offset, query) with clear descriptions in the schema. Since the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond the schema, and the schema effectively covers all parameters, the baseline is high. However, the description could have added context like default behaviors or usage examples.

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 'List service catalog items' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (service catalog items), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_catalog_categories' or 'get_catalog_item', nor does it specify scope (e.g., all items vs. filtered). This makes it adequate but vague regarding exact function.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_catalog_item' for single items or 'list_catalog_categories' for categories, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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