I have always admired Chandrabhal Tripathi's catalogue of the Strasbourg Jain MSS as a model.
Tripāṭhī, Chandrabhāl. 1975. Catalogue of the Jaina Manuscripts at Strasbourg, Indologia Berolinensis ; Bd. 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill)
There's a big issue at the heart of your question. Does a catalogue describe works or manuscripts?
Almost all catalogues of Indian MSS describe works. That is to say, there's a tacit assumption that a manuscript carries a work. So we say "a manuscript of the Bhagavadgītā". This gets cataloguers into difficulties when a manuscript supports many works. It also leads to the suppression of non-work materials such as marginalia, glosses, scribal verses and so on.
The usage of European classicists and medievalists is more evolved, and is the opposite. All major catalogues of Western manuscripts describe manuscripts. A typical entry begins with the physical description and then continues with a folio-by-folio description of what is written on the pages. Finally, there will be references and bibliography. To find works in such a catalogue, you consult an index.
The second, manuscript-oriented, procedure has more practical and intellectual advantages than I can list right now.
After the war, the great V. Raghavan designed a spreadsheet-like scheme for handlisting manuscripts and finagled funding to pay for catalogues that followed that scheme. That's all still in place today. So we have a century of Indian cataloguing based on a mistaken concept of what it is that gets catalogued.
I wrote a bit about this in my 2013 article, pp. 169 ff. and esp. 172 ff. See attached.