qlty_distinctCategories

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., data mutation, locking), authorization needs, performance implications, or result ordering. The only behavioral detail is the persist parameter, which is already in the schema. This is insufficient for a mutation-capable tool (persist=true materializes a table).

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 a concise purpose statement, followed by a bulleted list of arguments. It is three sentences long and uses whitespace effectively. The structure is clear and scannable, though it could be slightly more compressed without losing clarity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not explain the return format (e.g., array of strings, table with column). The persist parameter behavior is explained but only repeats the schema. Given the simplicity of the operation, the description is adequate but lacks full specificity about output shape.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description repeats the schema descriptions verbatim, adding no new meaning or context. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra credit is warranted.

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 starts with a clear verb-object phrase 'Get the distinct categories from a column in a table.' It explicitly names the resource (column in a table) and the action (get distinct categories). This differentiates it from siblings like qlty_columnSummary which provides statistics, not distinct values.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus others. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., table must exist), or exclusions. The agent has no context to decide between this and siblings like base_tablePreview or qlty_missingValues.

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