get_page_categories_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully documents default values (50, false) and constraints (max: 500), and explains the domain-specific concept of 'hidden categories.' However, it lacks critical safety disclosure (read-only vs. destructive), error handling behavior (e.g., what happens if the page doesn't exist), and rate limiting information.

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 uses a structured Args/Returns format that efficiently conveys information without redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by structured parameter documentation. The format is appropriate for the technical content, though the Returns section could specify the data structure format beyond 'List.'

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, simple return type), the description adequately covers the input parameters and return value despite the empty schema. It explains domain-specific concepts (hidden categories) and pagination constraints. However, it could improve by mentioning error cases (e.g., page not found) and explicitly confirming the read-only nature of the operation.

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 0% description coverage (no property descriptions in the JSON schema), but the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: title is described as 'Page title,' limit includes default and maximum values (50, 500), and show_hidden explains the domain concept of hidden categories. This completely bridges the gap left by the schema.

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 opens with the specific action 'Get categories that a page belongs to,' clearly defining the verb (Get), resource (categories), and scope (for a specific page). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_category_members_tool (which would retrieve pages for a category, the inverse relationship) and list_categories_tool (which lists all categories globally).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention that get_category_members_tool performs the inverse operation (category→pages), or clarify prerequisites such as whether the page must exist first. No 'when-not-to-use' or error conditions are described.

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