list_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (listing categories) and the filtering/narrowing behavior with group prefixes or full IDs. It does not state return format, but an output schema exists, so that is covered elsewhere.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with a clear statement of what the tool does, followed by a useful example. No unnecessary verbiage.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema provided. The description fully conveys its purpose and parameter usage, making it complete for the given complexity.

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 input schema provides zero descriptions for the 'group' parameter, but the description fully compensates by explaining what prefixes and full IDs mean, with examples (cs, math, astro-ph, cs.AI). This makes the parameter totally clear.

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 a specific action ('List arXiv subject categories') and its intended purpose ('for building cat: filters'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that handle paper retrieval and sessions.

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 explains where this fits in the workflow ('for building cat: filters') and gives concrete usage instructions (passing a group prefix or full category ID). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no alternative exists among siblings, so this is clear and adequate.

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