List categories

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the authentication scope requirement and domain context ('closed taxonomy') beyond the annotations, though it redundantly repeats 'Read only. Nothing is changed.'

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 compact and logically structured: verb, scope, domain context, and auth requirement. It contains slight redundancy ('Read only. Nothing is changed.') but remains appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential info.

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 read-only list tool with comprehensive schema descriptions and safe-behavior annotations, this description fully covers purpose, scope, auth, and domain nuances. No critical information is missing; pagination is already documented in the schema parameters.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive comments for all three parameters (limit, cursor, fields). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists categories, defines the scope as every category on the Site, and specifies alphabetical ordering. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_category, create_category, or list_articles.

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 this tool (to list all categories alphabetically) and an explicit authentication scope requirement (taxonomy:read). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would have warranted a 5.

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