List all product categories in the Tonzar catalog with product counts. 15 root categories covering industrial equipment, medical devices, agricultural machinery, transport, electronics, and more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parentId | No | Optional parent category ID to list subcategories. Omit for root categories. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning product counts but does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, or any side effects. Adequate for a simple list tool but lacks depth.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and context. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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?
No output schema; description would benefit from detailing the return format (e.g., list of objects with id, name, count). Basic understanding is possible but leaves some ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100% with one optional parameter (parentId) described in the schema. The description adds no extra detail about parameters or their semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 states the tool lists all product categories with product counts and specifies the scope (Tonzar catalog, 15 root categories covering various domains). It distinguishes from sibling tools like listProducts and getProduct.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like searchProducts or listProducts. The parameter hint to omit parentId for root categories is in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: getting a product, getting a supplier, listing categories, listing products in a category, and searching. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern in camelCase (getProduct, getSupplier, listCategories, listProducts, searchProducts).
Five tools is well-scoped for a read-only B2B catalog, covering browsing, searching, and detailed views without excess.
The tool set covers the full user journey: browse categories, list products, search, get product details, and get supplier details. No obvious gaps for the intended read-only use.
