list_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the return fields (category id, name, group name, income flag) and the filtering behavior. It does not state whether it is read-only, but the verb 'list' strongly implies a safe read operation, so this is 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, with four sentences each earning their place: purpose, filtering, return fields, and a practical usage tip. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, filtering, return fields, and downstream usage. It is contextually complete despite lacking annotations.

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 100% for the single parameter is_income. The description repeats the parameter's meaning (True for income, False for expense) without adding new semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'List all budget categories from Actual Budget' with a specific verb and resource, and the optional filtering on is_income distinguishes it from sibling tools. It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 for when to use the filter (income vs expense) and implies usage for transaction category filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for a list tool.

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