education_listCategories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes listing categories with descriptions, which is a read-only operation. It does not mention any side effects, destructive behavior, or authentication needs. The behavior is straightforward and accurately described, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds usage context. No unnecessary words or redundancy. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

While the tool is simple with no parameters, the description does not explain the return format or structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot know what the response looks like (e.g., list of objects with fields like 'id' and 'description'). Some guidance on expected output would improve completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level information. Per the rubric, zero parameters leads to a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies that no parameters are required.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all available lesson categories with descriptions.' The verb 'List' and object 'all available lesson categories' make the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like education_explainLesson (explains a specific lesson) and education_getChecklist (retrieves a checklist), making it unique.

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 says 'Use this to understand what topics are covered and help developers choose which checklist to work through.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but for a zero-parameter informational tool, this is sufficient.

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