category_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns category metadata and a paginated list sorted by popularity, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid slug), rate limits, or required permissions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and behavior. No superfluous words or unnecessary details.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return (category metadata + paginated list) and notes sorting by popularity. The four parameters are fully documented in the schema. Minor omission: no mention of error responses or edge cases.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond summarizing the pagination and filtering, which is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get apps within a specific category') and specifies the output includes category metadata and a paginated list sorted by popularity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories (which lists categories) and search_apps (which searches across categories).

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 implies usage for browsing apps by category but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_categories for category listing, search_apps for queries). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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