list_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get available' signals a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, but nothing is said about return shape, pagination, or whether results are static or filtered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, scope, and parenthetical examples. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a category result looks like, and it leaves the relationship to list_libraries unexplained.

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 'library' parameter is fully documented with its permitted values in the schema. The description adds only the concept of categories/styles, not any parameter-level meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get available icon categories/styles from a library') with concrete examples (solid, outline, brands). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_libraries by scoping to categories within one library, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance. The only hint is that a library must already be known, with nothing said about when to prefer this over search_icons or list_libraries.

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