patina_capabilities

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool avoids loading every schema (implying lightweight read operation), but omits other behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word serves a clear function. There is no redundancy or extraneous 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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves some gaps: the expected return format (list of commands? with which fields?) is not mentioned, nor is there any indication of pagination or ordering. The description is functional for basic use but could be more complete to fully inform the agent.

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 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining when to use include_schema (only for intended calls) and its default behavior (false to keep context small). The other parameters are simply listed without additional context, but the general advice on usage is helpful.

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 identifies the tool as a command catalog browser with filtering capabilities, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (patina_call, patina_health) by focusing on discovery without loading schemas. The verb 'Browse' combined with the resource 'command catalog' makes the purpose specific and actionable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (browsing the catalog) and when to set include_schema=true (only for commands to be called). It implicitly distinguishes from patina_call, but could be more explicit about when to skip this tool and directly use patina_call.

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