Get Category Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the dependency on valid category names from `list_tool_categories` but does not discuss error handling or return format, which is acceptable given the output schema exists. It provides modest value beyond annotations.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the function, and the second gives a necessary prerequisite. No wasted words and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with one parameter, full annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and prerequisite clearly. It leaves minor gaps such as behavior on invalid category names, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, with the `category` parameter already described as 'Category name from list_tool_categories.' The description reinforces this same relationship but adds no new detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'all tools available in a specific category.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `list_tool_categories` and `search_tools` by focusing on category-based enumeration.

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 instructs to use `list_tool_categories` first to obtain valid category names, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the prerequisite guidance is strong.

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