get_polyhaven_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get a list'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose details like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the format of the returned list. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits. It's minimally viable for a simple read tool but could be more complete by explaining what the output looks like or usage constraints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose ('The type of asset to get categories for') and listing possible values (hdris, textures, models, all). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail default behavior or constraints beyond the enum-like list.

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') and resource ('list of categories for a specific asset type on Polyhaven'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_polyhaven_assets' by focusing on categories rather than assets themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'get_polyhaven_status', which might also involve Polyhaven metadata.

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 implies usage by specifying the asset_type parameter, suggesting it's for retrieving categories based on asset type. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'search_polyhaven_assets' or mention prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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