ynab_get_category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context like caching behavior and specific error conditions, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 structured with main purpose, Args, Returns, and Errors sections. Every sentence is necessary and no repetition. It is efficiently dense with no wasted words.

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 get tool with 3 parameters and output schema present, the description covers the return fields and error cases. It could optionally describe output fields in more detail, but it's sufficiently complete for use.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description lists parameters with explanations (budget UUID, category UUID, response format) and defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and enum constraints.

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 tool gets 'current month details for a specific budget category,' specifying verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like ynab_get_month and ynab_list_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 provides error handling guidance (e.g., running ynab_set_default_budget if no default budget) and points out invalid input errors. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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