polyhaven_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it returns categories and counts, without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, if there are any side effects, or if there are limitations (e.g., network dependency, rate limits). The description is minimal and leaves the agent without information about error behavior or performance characteristics.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and parameter values. There is no filler or redundant text. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what is returned (categories and counts) and defines the valid asset_type values. It does not specify the output format in detail, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema. Overall, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage and no enum, so the description must compensate. It does add value by listing valid values (hdris/textures/models) for asset_type, which the schema lacks. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of each value or the effect of leaving the parameter at its default 'hdris', nor does it describe the output structure. This partial compensation warrants a middle score.

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 states the purpose clearly: it provides categories and counts for Poly Haven assets, with the asset_type parameter specifying which type (hdris/textures/models). The verb 'get' is implied, and the resource is 'categories and quantity'. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like polyhaven_search or polyhaven_download, its function is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or conditions, nor does it reference sibling tools like polyhaven_search for filtering or polyhaven_download for fetching assets. Usage context is entirely implied by the name and description, offering no explicit routing.

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