list_fulltext_catalogs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds transparency by listing the output fields, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how it handles non-existent databases, or any other behavioral traits. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not rich.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the key output fields. It is concise with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the scope and output fields. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance about when to choose this over related sibling tools, which is a minor deficiency given the simplicity of the tool.

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 schema description for the 'database' parameter is already fully specified (defaults to configured default database). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists all full-text search catalogs and specifies the returned attributes (item count, size, populate status). The resource is specific and the verb 'List' is appropriate, distinguishing it from the sibling tool list_fulltext_indexes.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_fulltext_indexes. The description implies usage by stating what it does, but it does not clarify the relationship between catalogs and indexes or any specific contexts where one would be preferred.

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