list_tools_by_category

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

The schema includes readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the agent already knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds a little context (grouping by category) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as output format, pagination, or error handling. With annotations present, the description is minimally adequate.

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 concise: two sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides a practical illustration. No redundant filler; every part contributes to understanding and using the tool.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, gives a usage context, and provides an example. The schema covers parameter details, and the description adequately implies the output (tools grouped by category). No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains that the category is optional and can be left empty. The description adds an explicit example with a concrete enum value and JSON format, which reinforces how to pass the parameter. This goes beyond the schema's basic description, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List all available tools grouped by category.' It also provides concrete use cases (customer management, invoice processing, CRM activities) and an example, making its purpose unambiguous. While sibling tools exist for listing categories, the name and description together make this tool's role distinct.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover tools for specific tasks...' and provides an example. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand the typical scenario. Lacks explicit exclusion of sibling list tools, so not a 5.

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