Get Started

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is fully covered by structured data. The description adds modest value by noting 'No API call' — implying it's offline/local — but lacks detail on what the return payload looks like, size of the catalog, or how much guidance is included. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The 'Start here' opener front-loads the critical instruction, followed by a clear description of return contents and the 'read before using' directive. Every word 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 0-parameter, read-only catalog tool with an output schema present and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what's returned, the prerequisite guidance, and the non-API nature. It doesn't detail output size or categories, but the presence of an output schema lowers that burden. It's sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, there are no params to document. The description appropriately focuses on what the call returns rather than parameter constraints. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description adequately conveys the tool's contract without needing parameter explanations.

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's purpose: 'Returns the Threadlinqs Intelligence tool catalog, categories, tiering, and usage guidance.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and the 'Start here' framing distinguishes it as an onboarding tool. However, it could more explicitly separate itself from sibling onboarding tools like get_roadmap, though the catalog/usage-guidance scope is fairly distinct.

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 says 'read this before using other tools,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes 'No API call,' which signals it's a local/metadata read. It doesn't explicitly name exclusion criteria vs alternatives, but the 'start here' instruction effectively orients the agent toward correct usage before consulting siblings.

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