catalog_effective

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

The read-only behavior is already declared in annotations, so the description's added value is its disclosure that the tool also performs conflict diagnostics and reports original input positions. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not elaborate on any side effects or formatting, which is acceptable for a read-only, zero-parameter tool.

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?

One compact sentence that places the verb and primary object upfront, then appends the two additional behaviors (conflict diagnostics, source positions). Every phrase earns its place and there is 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-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient: it defines what the effective catalog consists of, what diagnostics it includes, and where the data originates. Return format is covered by the output schema, so no more detail is needed.

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 no parameters, so the description carries no parameter semantics burden. The conceptual inputs (defaults and explicit declarations) are briefly identified, which adds enough context without needing to document argument details.

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 names a specific operation (reads the effective combination) and a specific resource (user defaults plus explicit project declarations), and clarifies it includes conflict diagnostics and original input locations. This distinguishes it from sibling catalog tools like catalog_list or catalog_graph, which would focus on enumeration or graph structure.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need the effective merged view of defaults and explicit declarations, especially with conflict diagnostics. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the agent must infer the appropriate selection from the description alone.

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