MinecraftWiki_listCategoryMembers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if the category doesn't exist), or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List all pages') and specifies the context ('members of a specific category on the Minecraft Wiki'), making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (listing category members with parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no structured output information, the description should ideally provide more context about what is returned, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('category' and 'limit'), including examples and defaults. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or edge cases. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('List all pages') and resource ('members of a specific category on the Minecraft Wiki'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'MinecraftWiki_listAllCategories' (which lists categories rather than category members) and 'MinecraftWiki_searchWiki' (which performs broader searches).

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 implies usage for retrieving pages within a category but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used over 'MinecraftWiki_searchWiki' for category-specific queries or mention prerequisites like category existence. Guidance is implied by the tool's name and purpose but not explicitly articulated.

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