get_catalog_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds genuinely useful domain context — the source=pending marker means a component exists in code but is absent from Storybook — which is real behavioral information. However, it never states permissions, read-only nature (implied only by the 'get' prefix), or result size/limits for a tool that enumerates 'every' component.

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?

Three tight sentences with the timing imperative ('Call BEFORE writing any UI code') front-loaded, followed by payload contents and one edge-case note. No filler.

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 zero-param-required read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what to expect back and when to call it, which is solid. The two filter parameters remain entirely unexplained, which is the meaningful remaining gap.

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 never mentions either parameter. It is unclear whether 'category' filters the catalog or what 'maxDescriptionLength' truncates; the phrase 'short description' only hints at the latter. With two undocumented params the description should compensate and does not.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('get_catalog_summary' → 'compact catalog of every design-system component') with the exact fields returned (name, import, short description, key props) spelled out. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_components, get_component, and get_component_usage without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Call BEFORE writing any UI code', plus the goal ('reuse existing components instead of building new ones'). It does not name a competing sibling or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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