bridge_catalogs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Inspect existing" implies non-mutating behavior and hints that the output feeds ID selection downstream, which is useful context, but it says nothing about permissions, completeness of listing, filtering, pagination, or what happens if the project has no such catalogs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key verb and resource list come first. It is arguably too terse for the amount of undocumented structure it must compensate for, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the one-line description leaves significant gaps: what a "collection" is, what IDs/fields are returned, and how the catalogs relate to project scope. For a tool whose entire job is enumeration, this is under-specified.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter. The required "project" and the optional nullable "collection" (default null) are left entirely unexplained — notably, the description names five resource categories that presumably map to "collection" values but never says so or lists accepted values.

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 gives a specific verb (inspect) and enumerates the resource types involved (styles/materials/scales/layouts/schedules), so an agent knows this is a read-only catalog-discovery tool. It does not differentiate itself from closely named siblings such as bridge_inspect or bridge_capabilities, which overlap conceptually.

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?

"before selecting actual IDs" gives an implied workflow position (call this first, then pick IDs for other tools), which is genuine usage guidance. However, no alternatives or exclusions are named, and an agent cannot tell from the text when bridge_inspect would be preferable.

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