tool-catalog

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that matching dynamic groups are auto-activated and become available immediately, and lists always-visible core groups. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Concise single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and key behaviors. The list of groups is lengthy but necessary; could be slightly better organized but not wasteful.

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?

While it describes activation behavior and group categorization, it does not specify the return format or properties of results (e.g., tool names, descriptions). Without an output schema, more detail on what the response contains would improve completeness.

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 covers both parameters (query, limit) with descriptions. The description adds that query searches by 'capability keywords' and mentions result categorization, adding semantic value beyond the schema alone.

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?

Clearly states the tool discovers available tools, including hidden legacy tools, using keyword search. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the meta-discovery tool.

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 mentions using query for capability keyword search and lists core vs dynamic groups for context. Does not state when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is clear.

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