Catalog

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "List" implies a non-mutating read and the scope of what is returned is spelled out by category, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about the shape of the response (flat list vs. grouped sections), size, or whether anything is filtered by the current project — meaningful gaps for a catalog tool with no output schema.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the exact contents, the second gives the usage rule. Every clause earns its place and the enumerated list is the most compact way to convey scope.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-content burden, and enumerating the five categories largely does that. The remaining gap is structural detail about how the catalog is organized in the response, which matters for a discovery tool but is a minor omission given how simple the call is.

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 is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add beyond the schema; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing any arguments and does not mislead the agent into expecting filters.

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 uses the specific verb "List" and enumerates the five resource categories covered: generators, animation presets, palettes, font characters, and export formats. That is far more precise than the bare title "Catalog," and the breadth signals it is the superset tool relative to narrower siblings like sprite_list_palettes. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"Use it to discover capabilities instead of reading source files" is a real when-to-use instruction that names a concrete alternative behavior (source inspection) and steers the agent toward this tool first. There is no guidance about when to prefer the narrower siblings (sprite_list_palettes, sprite_policy, sprite_quickstart) or whether this should be called before or after them, so the routing guidance is one-sided.

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