store_category

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination via has_more, the compact summary fields, and the hardware-dependent compatible flag. It does not mention read-only status or error behavior, but 'List' and these output details provide adequate transparency.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and includes useful examples and pagination/flag notes without redundancy.

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 an output schema present for return values, the description covers purpose, category examples, hardware behavior, and pagination. The main remaining gap is the undocumented sort parameter and lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but overall this is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies category_slug (via examples) and hardware (via the compatible flag). It does not explain sort, limit, or offset beyond the broad 'paginated' mention, nor does it mention defaults such as limit=20 or offset=0.

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?

Description opens with specific verb and resource ('List apps in a store category') and gives concrete slug examples. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like store_search or store_app, which target query-based or single-app scenarios.

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 clearly implies the use case: browsing a category's app listing with pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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