List category groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing that hidden/empty groups behave differently from list_categories and that categoryCount: 0 is a meaningful signal. It does not, however, note the includeHidden default or ordering/pagination behavior, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the routing advice to create_category/list_categories follows immediately, with the most decision-relevant detail (empty group discoverability) placed last for emphasis.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape — and it does (ids plus per-group category counts). Combined with the sibling routing and the annotation-covered safety profile, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter (includeHidden) is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or semantics for that parameter — the only parameter-adjacent hint is the categoryCount: 0 example, which is about output rather than input.

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 (List) and resource (category groups) and specifies the returned content: group ids and category counts. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling list_categories, so an agent can differentiate them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Use this to find the groupId for create_category') and names the alternative plus the exact condition that makes this tool necessary — empty or new groups (categoryCount: 0) are only discoverable here. No inference required.

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