list_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and no side effects are suggested or mentioned. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—no mention of pagination limits, default ordering, or authentication requirements. For a basic list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second provides useful context about what categories are. There is no redundant information or filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple (list categories) with 3 optional parameters documented in the schema and no output schema. The description tells the reader what the tool does but does not explicitly describe the return format or any pagination behavior, though these are partially implied by the schema. Given the simplicity and the schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete by noting the response structure.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters (page, search, perPage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself does not mention any parameters, but the schema already explains them adequately. Per the calibration rule, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 a specific action ('List all recipe categories in Mealie') with a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_recipes, list_foods, and list_tags by explicitly naming recipe categories as the target, making its purpose 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 description provides clear context: this tool lists recipe categories, which are used to organize recipes. It implies when to use it (when you need recipe categories) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or give exclusions. This is a simple listing operation where the need is self-evident, so the absence of explicit 'when not to use' is acceptable.

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