Listar categorías temáticas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results include dataset counts and feed search_datasets, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how many categories return, so added behavioral value is modest.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then the cross-tool hint, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter read tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and both params are fully covered by the schema plus annotations. The description covers purpose and the search_datasets linkage; only the absence of sibling disambiguation keeps it short of complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (format, source) are fully documented with enums and defaults in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (thematic categories of a CKAN portal), plus a distinguishing detail: dataset counts. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_category_info, which an agent must infer retrieves details for a single category.

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 clause 'pass a name as search_datasets' category' implies a follow-up workflow, giving useful implied context. But it never says when to prefer this over get_category_info or list_organizations, so usage guidance remains inferential rather than explicit.

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