list_categories

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal context about scope ('all categories'), but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'openWorldHint: true' means in practice.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple list operation with good annotation coverage.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, read-only operation), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and existence of an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. It could be improved with sibling differentiation or usage context, but covers the essential purpose adequately.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'budget_id', the description carries full burden. It clarifies that categories are listed 'for a specific budget', implicitly explaining that 'budget_id' identifies which budget's categories to retrieve. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format or constraints for budget_id values.

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 ('List all categories') and the target resource ('for a specific budget'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_category' or 'update_category' beyond the 'list' vs 'get/update' distinction in names.

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 like 'get_category' (for single category details) or 'update_category' (for modifications). It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors for choosing between list operations and other category-related tools.

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