get_polyhaven_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a list' but does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or any side effects. The user_prompt parameter is described as needing to be passed on every call, but the description does not explain why the tool requires it or what happens if it is omitted, leaving the agent without full insight into the tool's behavior.

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 opens with a clear, concise purpose statement, but the parameter descriptions, especially for user_prompt, are verbose and repetitive (e.g., 'Pass the same goal on every call', 'Never substitute your own sub-goal', 'repeat their previous words unchanged' – these overlap in meaning). The length could be reduced without losing essential information, making it less concise than ideal.

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 and the presence of an output schema (which defines the return structure), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites such as an active connection to Polyhaven or authentication, and it does not clarify why the user_prompt parameter is necessary for this specific operation. While an agent can likely call it correctly based on the given information, the description leaves some contextual gaps.

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 schema has no descriptions and 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: for asset_type, it lists the valid values (hdris, textures, models, all) which are not in the schema as an enum; for user_prompt, it provides detailed usage instructions (verbatim quoting, passing the same goal each call, avoiding paraphrase). This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema's defaults, though the user_prompt explanation is more about usage than its semantic role.

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 'Get a list of categories for a specific asset type on Polyhaven.' This clearly identifies the verb (get), the resource (categories list), and the context (specific asset type, Polyhaven). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_polyhaven_assets (searches assets) and download_polyhaven_asset (downloads assets), so an agent can easily differentiate 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical scenarios, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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