List categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the nontrivial caching behavior — results come from a local catalog cache with a 24h TTL — and directing to refresh_hint_catalog for forced updates. It omits return-format details, but for a simple listing tool this 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose (what it lists and its role for list_hints) is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the caching behavior added in the second. Every word 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?

For a param-less tool with neither annotations nor an output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what it returns, why it exists (feed list_hints), and how the cache behaves. It could name the exact shape of the result, but the output content is already disclosed, making this adequate.

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 tool has 0 parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description still adds value by previewing what the output will contain (categories with hint counts and slugs), so an agent knows what to expect from the call despite the schema being 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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('List the hint categories on uxhints.com') and explicitly names the output fields (hint counts, slugs). It also differentiates itself from siblings by describing its role as the provider of filters for list_hints, distinguishing it from list_hints, search_hints, get_hint, and random_hint 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 purpose clearly implies the use case: fetch category slugs to pass into list_hints as filters. It also flags refresh_hint_catalog as the alternative for cache refresh, giving the agent a concrete routing point. It doesn't state explicit exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can decide when to call it.

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