list_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists categories with file counts and descriptions, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or how results are structured (e.g., pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage hint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete. It covers what the tool does and a usage context, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, performance) that would be important even for simple tools, especially without annotations to fill those gaps.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details beyond what the schema provides, which is minimal. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools as they inherently require less parameter documentation.

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 categories') and resource ('OpenClaw registry'), specifying what information is returned ('file counts and descriptions'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on categories rather than individual instructions or searches, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_featured.

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 implied usage context ('to understand what types of instruction files are available'), suggesting this tool is for discovery and overview. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like search_registry or get_instruction, and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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