List logic categories

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and openness are covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the cost (~500 tokens) and the structured return shape (one-line blurb + logic count). It does not discuss pagination, caching, or error behavior, but for a cheap, read-only listing operation that is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with what it does, then gives concise usage guidance and a cost hint, and ends with an explicit exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns (categories, blurbs, counts), when to call it, when not to call it, and the approximate cost. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description explicitly stating the fields returned.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, and it correctly focuses on what the tool returns instead. No meaningful parameter information is missing since the input schema is empty.

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 a specific verb (Show) and resource (categories of the Roblox logics knowledge base), and immediately qualifies what is returned: a one-line blurb and a logic count. It distinguishes itself from sibling search_logics and list_logics by explicitly routing users to search_logics when they already have a concrete question.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this first when you do not know which area a problem belongs to, or to check whether the database covers a topic at all') and a clear when-not-to-use rule ('Do NOT call it before every search — if you already have a concrete question, go straight to search_logics'). This is exactly the kind of constraint that prevents over-calling and directs to the right alternative.

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