List transaction categories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'trees' hinting at hierarchical output, but fails to explain that the 'type' parameter is optional, what happens when omitted, or how 'include_hidden' affects results. No return format, permissions, or side-effect information is given.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and wastes no words.

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 is relatively simple, but the description lacks important behavioral details such as the optionality of the 'type' filter, the default behavior of 'include_hidden' (which defaults to true), and the structure or content of the returned trees. Without these, the description is adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully predict behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. The parameter names 'type' and 'include_hidden' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify that 'type' filters the tree or that 'include_hidden' controls hidden categories, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from the schema alone.

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 'List income, expense and transfer category trees' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (category trees), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts and list_tags. It also specifies the category types covered, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: to retrieve category trees. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_tags or manage_category), nor does it mention optionality or filtering behavior. The usage context is inferred from the tool's name and description.

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