catalog_browse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of enum-like values (e.g., max_fit: fits/tight/wont_run) but does not disclose pagination behavior, default sort, whether 'featured' and 'installed' are filters or flags, or what the response contains. The output schema exists but the description itself adds little behavioral context beyond value semantics.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, then uses a terse key: value format for parameter semantics. It is efficient, though the formatting is slightly telegraphic and could be clearer with a short sentence about how filters combine.

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 9-parameter browse tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core filter dimensions but leaves limit, offset, search, featured, and installed unexplained. The output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, but an agent would still be guessing about pagination and filter semantics. This is a minimally viable description with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for four parameters (task, size, max_fit, sort) by listing allowed values, which is genuinely useful. However, five parameters (limit, offset, search, featured, installed) are left entirely undocumented, and the description does not explain how the parameters combine, so the compensation is only partial.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Browse the model catalog') and enumerates the key filter dimensions (task, size, max_fit, sort), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like model_list and model_show. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it loses a point for not naming the alternative.

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 implies usage by listing the filter dimensions and their allowed values, giving an agent a sense of how to narrow a catalog browse. It does not state when to prefer this over model_list or model_show, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so the guidance is only implicit.

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