vebetter_get_impact_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the primary behavior (returns a list of valid categories) and implies read-only via 'Get.' However, it does not mention dynamic behavior, authentication, or any other side effects, which is acceptable for such a simple getter but not particularly rich.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what is returned (a list of valid impact categories) and the context (for VeBetter submissions), which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already reflects this with empty properties. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 what the tool does: it gets a list of valid impact categories for VeBetter submissions. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of valid impact categories' are specific, and the context 'for VeBetter submissions' distinguishes it from sibling tools like vebetter_submit_action or vebetter_claim_rewards.

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 the tool should be used when needing to know valid impact categories for a submission, but it does not explicitly say when to use it or mention alternatives. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions, so it falls short of clear context.

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