qui_get_categories

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a non-mutating operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds the endpoint and how to pass arguments (path variables, query values, body), but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements or error conditions. This is adequate but not 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 front-loads the endpoint and provides the argument-passing convention. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description omits endpoint-specific parameter requirements and includes a generic 'request body' instruction that is irrelevant for a GET request. Given the sparse schema and annotations, this description is too generic to enable correct invocation without additional inference.

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% with a generic 'arguments' object, so the description must compensate. It provides a general convention for passing path variables, query values, and body, but does not specify what path variables (beyond the implicit instanceID) or query parameters this endpoint accepts. The agent is left without concrete parameter names or required fields.

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 explicitly identifies the target endpoint (GET /instances/{instanceID}/categories) and the resource (categories), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qui_create_category, qui_edit_category, and qui_remove_categories by focusing on the GET operation.

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 that this tool fetches categories for a specific instance, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The read-only nature and endpoint make the usage obvious, but explicit guidance is absent, so it falls at 'clear context, no exclusions.'

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