step_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a key non-obvious behavior: allowed values are 'best-effort' and derived via specific rules (cucumber types, regex alternations, free parameters). This gives the agent realistic expectations about output quality. It does not mention output structure or side effects, but the catalog/resource framing implies a read-only operation.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core definition first and the usage context second. The final fragment about optional filters is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is short and does not distract from the main message.

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?

Without an output schema, the description conveys the main return content (step definitions, placeholders, allowed values) and the intended use case. It does not detail the exact response structure or pagination, but the limit default is in the schema and the catalog tool is simple enough that this is likely sufficient.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond summarizing 'Optional keyword/query filters'; the explanation of value extraction pertains to the output, not the parameters.

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 identifies the resource as a catalog of reusable step definitions and explains what it provides: placeholders and best-effort allowed values derived from the expression. It also states a usage goal ('compose new scenarios'), which distinguishes it from a generic search tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_steps, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 explicitly says 'Use to compose new scenarios from steps and values that already exist,' giving a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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