neurover_api_catalog

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds the fallback role but does not clarify what 'known routes' contains, whether results are live vs. static, or how large the catalog is; with annotations covering safety, this is adequate but thin.

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, front-loaded with purpose and then the constraint. No redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description identifies the return ('список маршрутов') and a usage boundary. It leaves unclear what a route entry includes and whether the catalog is authoritative or live, which slightly limits interpretation of results.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema coverage baseline is 4. No additional parameter semantics are possible or needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Список') and resource ('известных маршрутов API сайта') and adds a gating condition. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest siblings neurover_api_read and neurover_api_write, so the agent must infer that those count as 'separate 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?

Explicitly says to use this only when no dedicated tool exists for the task, which is a clear exclusion rule against the many specific workflow, media, and account tools. It does not name the dedicated alternatives (e.g., neurover_api_read) or say whether this should be preferred over guessing endpoints.

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