get_category

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the description's burden is lower. It adds minimal context by implying retrieval of 'detailed information,' but does not disclose specifics like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity, rich annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint), and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines and parameter details, which are partially mitigated by structured data, keeping it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, but the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'specific category' which hints at category_id, but does not explain budget_id or the relationship between parameters. With two required parameters and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as the description partially compensates but inadequately.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information for a specific category'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_categories' or 'update_category', which would require specifying it retrieves a single category by ID rather than listing or modifying.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like needing a budget_id and category_id, nor does it contrast with 'list_categories' for browsing or 'update_category' for modifications, leaving usage context unclear.

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