list_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 mentions that the tool lists categories 'with their tool counts', which adds useful behavioral context about the output format. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is cached/live, leaving some gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of categories and counts), though the mention of 'tool counts' partially addresses this.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics (since there are none), but this is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools when the schema fully covers them.

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 'List' and the resource 'all available tool categories (plugins) with their tool counts', making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_bugs' or 'list_figma_pages' by focusing on categories rather than specific data types.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover what capabilities are available before searching.' This provides clear context for usage, distinguishing it from other list tools by positioning it as a discovery mechanism rather than a data retrieval operation.

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