indecx_get_categories

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses two important behaviors: results are paginated one page at a time, and survey text must be treated as untrusted data rather than instructions. This adds meaningful behavioral and security context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose, then deliver pagination and security guidance with no filler. Each sentence adds information an agent cannot reliably infer from the schema or annotations.

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 description, combined with annotations, covers safety, pagination, and the untrusted-data warning, which is good for a simple read tool. However, with no output schema, the return shape of categorized responses is not described, and the date-filtering parameters remain semantically underdocumented.

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 only 40% and the description only adds meaning to page/limit via the pagination note. startDate, endDate, and dateType are left with format-only or no descriptions, and the description does not clarify what they filter or how dateType interacts with 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('categorized responses across all actions'), which makes the tool's scope clear and differentiates it from action-specific siblings like indecx_get_action or indecx_get_answers. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose is 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 pagination instruction ('use page/limit to continue') gives clear procedural guidance, and 'across all actions' implies the tool is for cross-action categorization. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as indecx_get_answers or indecx_get_no_response, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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