List categories

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile for this listing tool. The description adds real value beyond them: the returned fields (name, who can post, sort order, post count), the ordering guarantee, and the exact value domains for who_can_post (members/admins) and sort (default, new, top_week, top_month, top_year).

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 blocks, front-loaded with the returned fields, then the enumeration meanings. No filler sentences; every clause carries information the schema does not.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response and does so adequately, including the sort field's value set and ordering. Minor gaps: no mention of auth/permission requirements or behavior for a nonexistent/invalid group.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with an example ('yourgroup' for skool.com/yourgroup). The description adds nothing about the group argument itself, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the categories a group's feed is split into, in the order the group shows them.' Clear enough to distinguish from create_category/update_category/delete_category by verb alone, and it names the returned fields. It does not explicitly route to those mutation siblings, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or named alternative. Usage is only implied by the note that 'create_post and update_post take the name,' which hints that this is a prerequisite lookup for creating or updating posts, but the agent must infer that.

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