list_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one real trait: no authentication is required. However, it says nothing about read-only scope, response shape, or caching, so the disclosure is partial for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short fragments with the concrete category codes front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style borders on under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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 simple, no-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient by revealing the category code set, but the omission of the 'lang' parameter and any statement of what is actually returned leaves gaps. It is adequate rather than complete.

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% and the description never mentions the single 'lang' parameter or its enum values (es, ast), which controls the language of the returned labels. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the parameter's meaning to be inferred.

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 names the resource ('Tipos de incidencia') and lists the concrete category codes (ALU, VIA, SEM, SEN, VER), making the tool's output domain clear despite the terse phrasing. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_category or suggest_categories, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Sin auth' tells the agent no authentication is needed, which is a genuine precondition, but there is no guidance on when to call this versus get_category or suggest_categories. The agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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