kroger_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the JSON API source, real upstream pagination, the fallback to parsing the rendered page, the source field that reports which path answered, and the important failure mode where facet filters/sort cause an error instead of silently falling back to unfiltered results. This is unusually transparent.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by implementation-relevant details. There is minor redundancy between 'Browse a Kroger category' and 'Browses a Kroger product category,' but every sentence otherwise contributes context an agent needs.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the output shape by referencing kroger-search, the category identification scheme, pagination, fallback path, source reporting, and failure semantics. For a tool with 12 parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful group-level semantics: slug and category_id must be used together, and facet/sort parameters apply only to the JSON path and will error on JSON-path failure rather than degrade silently. This goes beyond the individual field descriptions, though it does not add per-parameter syntax details.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Browses a Kroger product category and returns normalized product cards plus facet groups.' It further clarifies scope by requiring slug and category_id together and gives a concrete example. The reference to 'same shape as kroger-search' helps situate it against a sibling without ambiguity.

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 makes the use case clear: browse a Kroger category when you can identify it by slug and category_id. It also explains the fallback behavior and when errors occur, which informs calling decisions. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as kroger_search or kroger_products, but the category-browsing intent is unambiguous.

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