get_categories

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 describes what the tool returns (category codes, display names, recap frequencies) and implies it's a read-only operation through the 'List' verb, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the output's utility, and the third details what information each category includes. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 that the tool has zero parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool returns and how to use the results. It doesn't need to explain return values since an output schema exists, but it usefully describes the output structure and purpose. The main gap is lack of behavioral constraints disclosure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any inputs. The schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial with no parameters), and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than input parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List all available news categories') and resources ('news categories with their recap timeframes'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on category metadata rather than news content, which is handled by tools like get_latest_news and get_news_recap.

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 for when to use this tool by stating that it 'Returns category codes that can be used with get_latest_news, get_news_recap, and other tools.' This gives practical guidance on its role in the workflow, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives.

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