yaaif_catalog_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'read-only' and 'paginated summaries,' which conveys core safety and output shape. However, it omits important behavioral details such as payload size, rate limiting, and whether the snapshot contains full objects or only summaries, which is critical for a tool that touches so many resource types.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the most important information ('Read-only snapshot') and lists all relevant resource categories without redundancy. It is long but every element is informative, so it earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's broad scope, two undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lists the resource categories but does not describe the returned structure, explain the parameters, or route to specific list tools for details. An agent would still be uncertain about the exact output and how to filter it.

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 provides no explanation of what 'q' or 'limit' mean. The only hint is 'paginated summaries,' which could relate to 'limit,' but that is not explicit. With zero parameter semantics in both schema and description, agents have no way to know how to use these parameters effectively.

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 ('snapshot') and the exact resource ('current tenant') with a detailed enumeration of included categories (agents, skills, MCP deployments, API keys, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from the many single-resource sibling list tools and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 description implies the tool is for a broad overview across multiple resource categories, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus the many specific list tools (e.g., yaaif_agent_list, yaaif_skill_list). No conditions or exclusions are stated, and there is no alternative routing guidance.

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