pin.catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns metadata like HEAD SHAs and doc counts, and explicitly states it does not claim content, which is additional behavioral context beyond the 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences deliver the essential information (call first, what it does, what it returns, and its precedence) with no filler or excessive detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only listing tool, the description covers the core functionality and usage context. However, it omits explanation of the view parameter and does not describe the output shape (though no output schema exists), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 one optional enum parameter 'view' with values repositories, sync, and stale. The description mentions 'stale' in the overview but does not explain the meaning or distinction of the three view options. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the parameter's semantics.

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 discovers registered Git roots and specifies the returned metadata (HEAD SHAs, doc counts, stale). The phrase 'Not a content claim' further clarifies its scope, distinguishing it from content retrieval tools like search or prove.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call first' and 'Use before search/prove', establishing precedence among siblings. It also implies when not to use it (when content is needed) by stating it is not a content claim.

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