List arXiv Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation with a closed set of results. The description adds that it lists categories and how to use them in search, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations, but doesn't detail aspects like response format, pagination, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and an additional use case ('how to use them in search'). It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (read-only, 1 optional parameter), annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and adds search usage context. However, it misses explaining the optional parameter, which is a minor gap in an otherwise adequate description for this context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It doesn't mention the 'primary_category' parameter at all, which is a gap. However, since there's only one optional parameter with a default null value, and the tool likely functions without it (listing all categories), the description's omission is less critical. Baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but with 1 undocumented parameter, it's slightly penalized.

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 action ('List all available arXiv categories') and the resource ('arXiv categories'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_categories' or 'search_papers', which would require a 5. The phrase 'and how to use them in search' adds useful context but doesn't fully distinguish it from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_papers' or 'update_categories'. It mentions 'how to use them in search' which implies a connection to searching, but doesn't specify if this should be used before searching, for filtering, or as a reference. No explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives are provided.

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