tie_catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing the tool's behavior. It clearly states that the tool lists resources and paths, and the instruction to call it first implies it is a safe, read-only discovery operation. The context signals also confirm no parameters are needed, reinforcing that it is a straightforward listing action.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the action and target.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no complex logic) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. It explains what the tool returns (a list of resources and paths) and when to invoke it (first). The absence of side effects and the read-only nature are implied clearly enough for a catalog discovery 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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter information to clarify. The description correctly adds no parameter details because none exist. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools.

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 identifies the resource as 'all available Tenable Identity Exposure API resources and their paths', which precisely states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by framing itself as the discovery entry point, saying 'Call this first to discover what resources exist before using other tools.'

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call this first to discover what resources exist before using other tools.' This clearly indicates the intended usage context. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternative scenarios, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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