List the categories the project files prompts under

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

The description claims to list 'every category', which implies exhaustiveness. However, the annotation openWorldHint=true indicates that the result set may be incomplete and should not be assumed exhaustive. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the annotation, warranting a score of 1.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the scope ('Every category of the active project') and then adds the key details of depth and origin. No fluff or repetition; every word contributes.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description provides a high-level understanding of the return structure (two levels, subcategories, origin). It does not specify output format, but that is not required given the lack of an output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect when calling the tool.

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 zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to compensate. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter-related information, which is acceptable.

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', the resource 'categories of the active project', and specifies the depth (two levels) and the inclusion of origin (proposed vs hand-written). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or list_prompt_groups, which target different resources.

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 clear context by scoping to the active project, implying the tool is used when category structure is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource name makes the use case obvious against the sibling list.

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