get_skill_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context: the catalog is static and may lag actual skill tool lists, and that the calling agent cannot invoke these tools itself. It also specifies the return structure, going beyond the annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and concise: it starts with the purpose, then usage context, a caveat, and the return format. Each sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. The front-loading of the read nature and purpose is effective.

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 read-only catalog tool, the description is complete. It explains what is returned (dict mapping), how to use the result, and a known limitation (static data, lag). It also clarifies an important behavioral constraint (pilot cannot call these tools). Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and the description cannot add parameter-specific details. Per the baseline for no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter docs.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete catalog of available skills and tools for workflow design'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly positioning itself as the source for building blocks used in workflow creation, not as a tool that designs or executes workflows.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use it: when designing a custom workflow, to understand available building blocks, and then feed names into create_workflow or update_draft. It also notes it is not a live query, which implicitly advises against using it when real-time registry data is needed, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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