get_attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that attributes are retrieved, but does not mention safety (read-only? destructive?), authentication needs, rate limits, or return behavior. This is a major 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., separating parameter explanations) without becoming overly long.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the returned attributes look like, error conditions, or prerequisites. This tool appears important for posting, so more detail is needed.

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 0%. The description only explains 'category_id' implicitly by stating its purpose, but completely ignores the 'language' parameter. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful context for all parameters.

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 'get', the resource 'required attributes of category_id', and the usage context 'needed when posting'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on updates, orders, items, etc.

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 provides a clear usage hint ('cần khi đăng bài' / needed when posting), indicating when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidelines or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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